• Sam Clemente@allthingstech.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        @zbyte64 from what I understand, you’re referring to the process at scale—the amount of information the AI can take in is inhuman—which I’m not disagreeing with

        None of which is relevant to my original point: the scale of their operations, which has already been used countless times in copyright law

        The scale at which they operate and their intention to profit is the basis for their infringement, how they’re doing it would be largely irrelevant in a copyright case, is my point

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I don’t understand how when I say “agency” or “an aspect of the process” one would think I’m talking about the volume of information and not the quality.

          • Sam Clemente@allthingstech.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            @zbyte64 1) In no way is quality a part of that equation and 2) In what other contexts is quality ever a part of the equation? I mean I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

              If we’re using your paintings as training data for a Monet copy, then it could be.

              Are we even talking about AI if we’re saying data quality doesn’t matter?

              • Sam Clemente@allthingstech.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                @zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally

                Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*

                I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is

                • zbyte64@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I was narrowly taking issue with the comparison to how humans learn, I really don’t care about copyrights.

                  • Sam Clemente@allthingstech.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    @zbyte64 where am I wrong? The process is effectively the same: you get a set of training data (a textbook) and a set of validation data (a test) and voila, I’m trained

                    To learn how to draw an image of a thing, you look at the thing a lot (training data) and try sketching it out (validation data) until it’s right

                    How the data is acquired is irrelevant, I can pirate the textbook or trespass to find a particular flower, that doesn’t mean I’m learning differently than someone who paid for it