• user28282912@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The content produced by humans was scraped en-masse for the explicit purpose of training models which were then monetized into business products.

    I struggle to reconcile that with Fair Use.

    I can see if the source was EULA’d to remove all rights to what you post to things like Reddit, Stack Overflow, and if somehow those entities were contacted ahead of time and negotiated usage. You, I and the web server logs know that this was almost never the case.

    • Postimo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I think the core of the fair use argument is that the AI models that are being trained are transformative products of the original works.

      Might be a hot take here but I basically agree. I still believe it was theft and that the realities of the legal framework we had don’t really stand up to the evolving problems, but under the current laws there is really no justification for saying that, taking the input of a bunch of images and giving the output of a set of statistical correlations of pixels based on descriptions, isn’t transformation.

      • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I agree. I think that all AI companies need to crash and burn. But it’d be disingenuous to claim that what these models are doing is completely different than what humans are doing. Humans don’t pull stuff out of thin air. We are products of our upbringing and schooling. I say that, because I hate our current copyright laws with a burning passion and have done so long before LLMs showed up. It’s possible to hate copyright and AI companies.