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
We don’t, and shouldn’t, give LLMs the same rights as people.

>>CJeffe+ta
We're not "giving them the same rights as people", we're trying to define the rights of the set of "intelligent" things that can learn (regardless of if their conscious or not). And up until recently, people were the only members of that set.

Now there are (or very, very soon there will be) two members in that set. How do we properly define the rules for members of that set?

If something can learn from reading do ban it from reading copyrighted material, even if it can memorize some of it? Clearly that would be a failure for humans a ban of that form. Should we have that ban for all things that can learn?

There is a reasonable argument that if you want things to learn they have to learn on a wide variety, and on our best works (which are often copyrighted).

And the statements above have no implication of being free of cost (or not), just that I think blocking "learning programs / LLMs" from being able to access, learn from or reproduce copyright text is a net loss for society.