Technology

37726 readers

45 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

220

Sarah Silverman and other authors are suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement, alleging that they're training their LLMs on books via Library Genesis and Z-Library (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/technology

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ag_roberston_author 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don’t see people chomping the bit to take down other sites that have been doing this for decades.

But this hasn't been happening for decades. Machine learning algorithms are an incredibly new way of processing data. All those scenarios you are talking about required a human to be the one doing the reading and summarising, which for most authors is fine, they expect people to read their work and summarise it, or quote it.

What they don't expect is for that work to be fed in full into a private companies data set to train a machine how to duplicate their content at speeds completely incomparable to human capabilities. We're talking about something completely new, completely unseen and you're disregarding the rights of those creators to not want their art, music or writing to be fed into the endless churn of data for these megacorporations.

Also, it's champing at the bit, not chomping.

[–] B1naryShad0w 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for clarifying as I also had trouble recognizing the distinction at first.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 1 year ago

and you’re disregarding the rights of those creators to not want their art, music or writing to be fed into the endless churn of data for these megacorporations.

... I don't see the authors having any rights at all once the work is publish and sold. That's the point of SELLING the book. It's letting people do with it what they please. That's called "ownership". If I want to buy every copy of your book that I can get my hands on in a store and set it on fire... You have no say in it, no matter what. I purchased the book. That's it. If I'm literally a Nazi reading the Diary of Anne Frank, nobody gets to tell me that I'm not allowed to check the book out of the library. Your "rights" to the copyright of the book are irrelevant to my rights of ownership of the book. Or the libraries rights to loan the book out to whomever.

Also, it’s champing at the bit, not chomping.

Really don't care about grammar nazi-ing... and tell that to my phones autocomplete.