Pretty much everything nowadays is copyrighted, by omitting such materials, what are you really left with?
LLM is a tool much like the internet is a tool. Yes, someone can use it to steal, but stealing is against the law.
Instead of encoding a criminal justice system into an LLM by omitting the possibility of stealing an artists work or omitting the knowledge of physics so someone can't learn how to build a bomb, we should instead just prosecute people for using it in that way intentionally.
How often do people get prosecuted for ripping off an artists style? The criminal justice system "hated artists" long before LLMs and it's not the responsibility of the tech. companies to rectify that in my opinion.
You're not addressing the massive abuse of the commons this still represents. If artists don't have the right to tell you to fuck off for using their work in training data, they're less likely to publicly show that work, which hurts them because they become less visible and hurts the AI because the training data gets worse.
Artists are generally pretty encouraging to people entering the field and using their stuff as reference for new artists. That actually contributes to art. It's definitely not the same thing as a massive tech corporation trying to automate their livelihoods, but please keep making this flawed argument analogizing two completely different processes.
> It's definitely not the same thing as a massive tech corporation trying to automate their livelihoods, but please keep making this flawed argument analogizing two completely different processes.
Ah yes, the famous massive tech corporation behind stable diffusion.
> Now tell me how artists were not stealing from each other.
Key words being "from each other". AI only takes, it doesn't give anything back, it doesn't inspire. Their ultimate goal is to absorb the entire human history of art and then displace millions of people who received nothing from this transaction they were forced into, just so that some billionaire can afford another yacht.
I have no problems with AI models, but if you want to use art, writing, code, etc. for training, you should restrict your use to public domain works, ask for consent, or commission it. Obviously that would cost a lot of money so big tech companies are once again looking for a free ride.
> AI only takes, it doesn't give anything back, it doesn't inspire.
Totally wrong. There is even a well known counter example: dream-like videos generated by ai wasn't something we had before.
This statement tells me you never used it.
> just so that some billionaire can afford another yacht
You are heavily mistaken, that the scenario where ai learning isn't considered as fair use of material. In this case, only megacorps will be able to trains their own AI by spending billions in content.
> Obviously that would cost a lot of money so big tech companies are once again looking for a free ride.
You are constructing your own story while ignoring what is happening.
Adobe and Dall-e models were trained with datasets they mostly had rights over. OpenAI partnered with Shutterstock, and Adobe have their own photo stock.
Big tech companies didn't had problem looking for image content.
Stable Diffusion on the other hand is open source & open research, but didn't had any rights on most of the image they trained.
They do have an option; they can choose to not publish their work. By digitizing your creation, you are creating a version of your work that can be distributed at practically-free prices with little effort. If that undermines or undervalues the art you make enough, you can choose not to share it.
Even Open Source advocates don't really have the right to stop companies from using Open code. The license discourages it, but everyone from Tesla to Nintendo has been caught violating it's terms. Publishing stuff on the open web has always had consequences, unfortunately.
LLM is a tool much like the internet is a tool. Yes, someone can use it to steal, but stealing is against the law.
Instead of encoding a criminal justice system into an LLM by omitting the possibility of stealing an artists work or omitting the knowledge of physics so someone can't learn how to build a bomb, we should instead just prosecute people for using it in that way intentionally.
How often do people get prosecuted for ripping off an artists style? The criminal justice system "hated artists" long before LLMs and it's not the responsibility of the tech. companies to rectify that in my opinion.