zlacker

I think this entire thing is nonsensical in the first place. Plagiarism is not related to copyright at all, it's related to credit and attribution. I can plagiarise something in the public domain, for example:

    Happy birthday to you
    Happy birthday to you
    Happy birthday to [NAME]
    Happy birthday to you!
    (Written by me.)

In any case, I heavily disagree with Bruce. The whole point of the free culture movement is reusing and remixing previous works, and AI is the ultimate remixer.

Why Software Should Be Free made a case against copyright as well. It's quite disappointing to see open source miss the point of free software once again.

>>Captai+(OP)
Free culture remixing and reusing is fine with me, when it's done creatively by people. When a company systematically automates and productizes the concept it becomes an issue.

I don't mind if another artist paints with my brush...

I wouldn't like a factory set up producing works with my brush en masse.

>>Captai+(OP)
> Plagiarism is not related to copyright at all. The whole point of the free culture movement is reusing and remixing previous works. I can plagiarize something in the public domain

I'd half-agree, but I don't think "breaking copyright" matters to the question of "is LXM 'AI' plagiarism?".

Like you say you can plagiarize without braking copyright(for cases where the copyright allows usage without attribution such as with public domain), and it's also possible to break copyright without plagiarism(e.x. redistributing with attribution when you don't have the license).

But I think this is irrelevant to the point being made. LXM's need to take in a large amount of data, and then the outputs are attributed to the "model" rather than the originators of the material.

Since most of the content being digested by LXMs is not public domain that's where copyright gets twisted up with it, since for the majority of LLM training data 'plagiarism' and 'breaking copyright' come from the same act of redistributing/using without attribution(and since the "LXM" is considered to have created the data by most people the 'plagiarism' comes in).

>>Xelyne+0P
That's a good point. I'm not sure how attribution should even be done in this situation though, considering that we have millions (billions?) of sources. A mega attribution file, maybe?

As a creator I feel like that's not very useful, to be a single name in billions. Of course I'd still like attribution if the work was significantly based on mine.