Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I am aware and I don't expect that everything on the internet is public domain... I think the models built off of works displayed to the public should be automatically part of the public domain.
The models are not creating copies of the works they are trained on any more than I am creating a copy of a sculpture I see in a park when I study it. You can't open the model up and pull out images of everything that it was trained on. The models aren't 'stealing' the works that they use for training data, and you are correct that the works were used without concern for copyright (because the works aren't being copied through training), licenses (because a provision such as 'you can't use this work to influence your ability to create something with any similar elements' isn't really an enforceable provision in a license), or permission (because when you put something out for the public to view it's hard to argue that people need permission to view it).
Using illegal sources is illegal, and I'm sure if it can be proven in court then Meta will gladly accept a few hundred thousand dollar fine... before they appeal it.
Putting massive restrictions on AI model creation is only going to make it so that the most wealthy and powerful corporations will have AI models. The best we can do is to fight to keep AI models in the public domain by default. The salt has already been spilled and wishing that it hadn't isn't going to change things.
I don't have much technical knowledge of AI since I avoid it as much as I can, but I imagined that it would make sense to store the training data. It seems that it is beneficial to do so after all, so I presume that it's done frequently: https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/7739/what-happens-to-the-training-data-after-your-machine-learning-model-has-been-tra
My understanding is also that generative AI often produces plagiarized material. Here's one academic study demonstrating this: https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/beyond-memorization-text-generators-may-plagiarize-beyond-copy-and-paste
Finally, I think that whether putting massive restrictions on AI model creation would benefit wealthy corporations is very debatable. Generative AI is causing untold damage to many aspects of life, so it certainly deserves to be tightly controlled. However, I realize that it won't happen. Just like climate change, it's a collective action problem, meaning that nothing that would cause significant impact will be done until it's way too late.