Hot take: LLM technology is being purposefully framed as AI to avoid accountability - eviltoast

Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn’t have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn’t have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that’s blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

  • Fylkir@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see it like this:

    Our legal system has the concept of mechanical licensing. If your song exists, someone can demand the right to cover it and the law will favor them. The result of an LLM has less to do with your art that a cover of your song does.

    There are plenty of cases of a cover eclipsing the original version of a song in popularity and yet I have never met a single person argue that we should get rid of the right to cover a song.

    • nosycat@forum.fail
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, you have the legal right to cover someone else’s song without asking permission first, but you still have to pay them royalties afterwards, at fair market rates.