Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn’t have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn’t have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that’s blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

  • Greenskye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    We shouldn’t have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI

    Wait people think that sounds reasonable?

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do. If it’s publicly available, individuals should be able to learn from it. Artists don’t pay their influences that helped develop their style, we don’t pay the programmers that answer questions on stack overflow

      Hell, I’m not sure generative AI should have to pay for training data at all. It points to a weakness in the system, and it doesn’t fix it - the field is getting away from needing existing datasets. GPT4 swallowed everything worth swallowing, and it’s already training GPT4.5. This would only make it harder for new players to compete in the generative AI space

      It can’t profit only the few, it’s too big a force multiplier. Paying up front doesn’t fix it, recurring payments don’t fix it… That’s nothing but a payoff to a few people as this starts to eat the best parts of the job market

      We need to think much bigger - we need to look at how we handle ownership as a society