this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
613 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

69046 readers
2317 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 months ago (28 children)

Ok, dumb question time. I'm assuming no one has any significant issues, legal or otherwise, with a person studying all Van Gogh paintings, learning how to reproduce them, and using that knowledge to create new, derivative works and even selling them.

But when this is done with software, it seems wrong. I can't quite articulate why though. Is it because it takes much less effort? Anyone can press a button and do something that would presumably take the person from the example above years or decades to do? What if the person was somehow super talented and could do it in a week or a day?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (4 children)

They are copying your intellectual property and digitizing its knowledge. It’s a bit different as it’s PERMANENT. With humans knowledge can be lost, forgotten, or ignored. In these LLMs that’s not an option. Also the skill factor is a big issue imo. It’s very easy to setup an LLM to make AI imagery nowadays.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (11 children)

I don't think it is relatively difficult to make "Ethical" AI.

Simply refer to the sources you used and make everything, from the data used, the models and the weights, of public domain.

It baffles me as to why they don't, wouldn't it just be much simpler?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because there's not enough PD content there to train AI on.

Copyright law is generally (yes I know this varies country by country but) gives the creator immediate ownership without any further requirements, which means every doodle, shitpost and hot take online is property of it's owner UNLESS they chose to license it in a way that would allow use.

Nobody does, and thus the data the AI needs simply doesn't exist as PD content and that makes the only choices for someone training a model is either to steal everything, or don't do it.

You can see what choice has been universally made.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Simply refer to the sources you used

Source: The Internet.

Most things are duplicated thousands of times on the Internet. So stating sources would very quickly become a bigger text than almost any answer from an AI.

But even disregarding that, as an example: Stating that you scraped republican and democrat home sites on a general publicly available site documenting the AI, does not explain which if any was used for answering a political question.

Your proposal sounds simple, but is probably extremely hard to implement in a useful way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

It would cost more in time and effort to do it right.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›