• webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I clarified the comment above which was misunderstood, whether it makes a moral/sane argument is subjective and i am not covering that.

    I am not sure why you think there is a claim that openAI is trying to make companies pay, on the contrary the comment i was clarifying (so not my opinion/words) states that openAI is making an argument that anyone should be able to use copyrighted materials for free to train AI.

    The costs of running an online service like chatgpt is wildly besides the argument presented. You can run your own open source large language models at home about as well as you can run Bethesda’s Starfield on a same spec’d PC

    Those Open source large language models are trained on the same collections of data including copyrighted data.

    The logic being used here is:

    If It becomes globally forbidden to train AI with copyrighted materials or there is a large price or fine in order to use them for training then the Non-Corporate, Free, Open Source Side of AI will perish or have to go underground while to the For-Profit mega corporations will continue exploit and train ai as usual because they can pay to settle in court.

    The Ethical dilemma as i understand it is:

    Allowing Ai to train for free is a direct threat towards creatives and a win for BigProfit Enthertainment, not allowing it to train to free is treat to public democratic AI and a win for BigTech merging with BigCrime

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is very well put, I really wish I could have started with that.

      Though I envision it as a loss for BigProfit Enthertainment since I see this as a real boon for the indie gaming, animation and eventually filmmaking industry.

      It’s definitely overall quite a messy situation.