stopthatgirl7Authors Are Furious After Finding Their Works on List of Books Used To Train AI
Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.
LEXAny AI model that uses publically available information for training should be open source by law.
This business where corporations (that includes authors, who are published by huge corporations) fight over who “owns” ideas is assinine.
OpenAI, Google, all these fucks should be forced to open source their models, end of story.
You can do this open source right now
Trick is educating the octogenarians in the senate to understand any of what you just wrote.
Yup! My ideas about what should happen are so far removed from what will actually happen they could be Planet X.
But that doesn’t make me wrong, dammit!
should be open source by law.
That doesn’t make sense. The “source” of the AI model is the publically available information, which the creators have to right to redistribute.
The rules of Open Source simply do not work for AI models. You’d have to come up with some other rules.
Yeah, it ought to be owned by the people who contributed the work that trained it. But that’s socialism.
… No really, that would literally be socialism.
My friend, there are already numerous open source models out there. It’s a thing.
The whole legal situation around AI models isn’t clear and common Open Source licenses are an ill fit for them because you aren’t distributing the source, but just a binary blob. You can’t just take any random accumulation of data and slap a Open Source license on it, especially when that accumulation is the result of proprietary data, incompatible licenses and all that.
Most people don’t care and just remix everything as they please, but just because you can download for free something doesn’t make it Open Source. Furthermore a lot of the models exclude commercial use or otherwise restrict the use in ways that are incompatible with the Open Source definition.
Has any of the model made it into Debian yet?
Oh, okay. Well you should tell IBM that, they’re clearly confused.
They are, just like a lot of other people. For example they cite LLaMa 2 as a popular open source model, while it restricts commercial use.
Open Source Initiative @[email protected] on X
@ylecun Congratulations but please watch your language: The license authorizes only some commercial uses. The term Open Source has a clear, well understood meaning that excludes putting any restrictions on commercial use. See `2. Additional Commercial Terms` https://t.co/mjZPlxrknL
I’d say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don’t count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.
It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they’re sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.
But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.
The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.
CorkyskogI think we just need to ban the ability to copyright any AI output. Unless you can prove you created, and or paid for the rights for every piece of training data, I don’t see how it’s fair. Even then, there are still arguments against letting AI create IP.
The people I’m seeing outraged are artists and authors who did not sign their ideas over for public access. not a faceless publisher with cloth bags and dollar signs painted on them. Also I don’t think you understand what public and private ownership means. A person is allowed to privately own their own creation. They don’t owe that to the world. The world isn’t entitled to it.