Hacker News Reader

Comment by rikafurude21 | Hacker News Reader

Training on datasets like libgen is a "old-school" GPT-3 era method by now - you can just assume any major base models dataset includes a ton of pirated pdfs, really nothing new about this. Information wants to be free, and copying digital data isnt stealing since the information can be replicated infinitely for free.

Zuckerberg sucking up to the right wing because the cultural landscape is swinging right is also not surprising.

View on HN

"I've decided I don't like the law, so AI companies shouldn't have to follow it. And besides, everybody does it."

That's the gist of your argument. Take a moment to consider what can be justified by that same reasoning. Just about anything.

People work hard on what they write. Many writers struggle to generate a reliable income. Yet to you, it's okay for a competitor to take that work without compensating the author, then use it in a product they will sell. Because "information wants to be free".

It breaks my fucking heart how little our society cares about the compensation of artists, authors, and creative people generally; all while gobbling it up and expecting it for free.

When you hear musicians and artists talk about their career, they will talk about their inspirations. They create original works, in part based on their influences, and we do not expect them to pay out to every artist they have encountered.

Why is software different? Where should we draw the line between fair use and copyright violation when it comes to AI?

You're right that all current models' datasets are sanitized better these days, but if any output from these older models was used to train the newer models, there's an argument that can be made that there is additional damages to be paid to the copyright holders.

"Information wants to be free"

No, you want it to be free. The people whose labor created that information didn't want it to be free, especially for some gigacorp to launder while hiding behind fair use.

Some people who create information want it to be free. They often use Creative Commons to ensure it stays free

I have a copyright on information I have created, but would never enforce it because I want it to be free and consumed by both humans and AI

Totally cool! I'm confused how that's related to what I'm saying though.

It seemed as though you have been implying your opinions are shared by all information creators. I am offering my opinion so that other readers know there are different opinions and that it is ok to write for both man and machine. It's a personal choice

I'm also not sure what you mean by "laundering", though it seems like there is the prevailing belief among a subset of artists that the AIs are regurgitating their works (which would be a copyright violation) rather than just incorporating them into their world representation (learning, fair use). While there have been instances of the models outputting certain texts, we have not seen a new story about this in awhile. There are multiple remediations for this issue. I don't find banning copyrighted material from learning material a good one. It's like book banning in schools if you ask me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com