zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
For me it's quite obvious that if you make a profit from an engine that has as an input copyrighted material, then you owe something to the owner of this copyrighted content. We have seen this same problem with artists claiming stable diffusion engines were using their art.

>>lp4vn+e4
If you study copyrighted material for four years at a university and then go on to earn money based on your education, do you owe something to the authors of your text books?

I'm not sure how we should treat LLMs with respect to publicly accessible but copyrighted material, but it seems clear to me that "profiting" from copyrighted material isn't a sufficient criteria to cause me to "owe something to the owner".

>>gwrigh+m8
Do people ever get tired of this argument that relies on anthropomorphizing these AI black boxes?

A computer isn't a human, and we already have laws that have a different effect depending on if it's a computer doing it or a human. LLMs are no different, no matter how catchy hyping them up as being == Humans may be.

>>sensan+ci
Great comment. The amount of anthropomorphizing that goes on in these threads is just baffling to me.

It seems obvious to me that, despite what current law says, there is something not right about what large companies are doing when they create LLMs.

If they are going to build off of humanity's collective work, their product should benefit all of humanity, and not just shareholders.