Comment on š¤ Interesting
mechoman444@lemmy.world āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Iāve seen this argument in one form or another for years, and my response has never changed:
Either information on the internet is free for everyone, or it isnāt.
You donāt get to publish information for the public to access and then turn around and say that some people are allowed to use it while others are not, especially if the distinction is based on whether someone might make money from it.
You canāt have it both ways. You canāt claim information should be freely available and then try to restrict who can benefit from it.
Pick one. Either the information is free, or it isnāt.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Free as in beer, not speech.
The open source community has licenses associated with its code. Just because one can access it doesnāt mean they can fucking sell it.
mechoman444@lemmy.world āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Ok. Fine. Sure.
Not sure though what this has to do with llm companies making money. Since they write their own code and llms are trained on dataā¦ Like wikipedia.
š¤·
balsoft@lemmy.ml āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
LLMs are absolutely trained on FOSS software, including GPLād stuff. Accelerating software development is also a large part of how they are making money. I believe training on GPLād software and then charging for access is copyright infringement, but it doesnāt really matter because entities supposed to be enforcing copyright are paid for by the same billionaires who run the AI companies, so literally nothing will happen.
mechoman444@lemmy.world āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
This argument has never made much sense to me.
Copyright protects the expression itself, not the ideas, facts, patterns, grammar, writing styles, or knowledge learned from that expression. Humans learn from copyrighted books, articles, movies, and music every day. Nobody claims that someone who read 10,000 copyrighted novels is committing copyright infringement every time they sit down and write a new story.
Thatās the part I keep seeing people ignore.
If learning from copyrighted material is infringement, then every author, journalist, musician, engineer, and artist on the planet is infringing copyright because they all learned their craft from copyrighted works created by other people.
The real question is whether an AI is reproducing copyrighted content, not whether it learned from copyrighted content. Those are two completely different issues.
You donāt get to argue that learning is legal when humans do it and suddenly becomes theft when a machine does it. Either learning from publicly available information is allowed, or it isnāt. The standard cannot magically change because you dislike the technology.