Has been a while since AI were introduced into the daily basis of the users around all the internet. When it firstly came I was curious yeah like everyone and tried some prompts to see “what this thing can do”, then, I never, ever, used AI again, because I really never saw it like something necesary, we had automatic systems already, so, the time keep moving to me until this day, when I realized something: how people is dependent of this shit. I mean, REALLY is dependent, and then they go like “I only used it for school 😢” like, are you serious dude? Do you leave your future to an algorithm? Coming back with my question, years have passed, I do think we all have an opinion more developed about AI, what do you think? Fuck it and use it anyways? If that is the case, why blame companys to make more accessible it’s use? Like microsoft putting copilot even in notepad. “Microsoft just wants to compile your data.” Isn’t LLM about that? Why blame them if you are going to use the same problem with different flavor? Not defending Microsoft here, I’m only using it like an example, change it for the company of your own preference.
Except they DID steal. Outright. They used millions of people’s copyrighted works (art, books, etc.) to train these data sets and then sold them off. I don’t know how else you can phrase it.
As I said above:
Emphasis added.
They do not “steal” anything when they train an AI off of something. They don’t even violate copyright when they train an AI off of something, which is what I assume you actually meant when you sloppily and emotively used the word “steal.”
In order to violate copyright you need to distribute a copy of something. Training isn’t doing that. Models don’t “contain” the training material, and neither do the outputs they produce (unless you try really hard to get it to match something specific, in which case you might as well accuse a photocopier manufacturer of being a thief).
Training an AI model involves analyzing information. People are free to analyze information using whatever tools they want to. There is no legal restriction that an author can apply to prevent their work from being analyzed. Similarly, “style” cannot be copyrighted.
A world in which a copyright holder could prohibit you from analyzing their work, or could prohibit you from learning and mimicking their style, would be nothing short of a hellish corporate dystopia. I would say it baffles me how many people are clamoring for this supposedly in the name of “the little guy”, but sadly, it doesn’t. I know how people can be selfish and short-sighted, imagining that they’re owed for their hard work of shitposting on social media (that they did at the time for free and for fun) now that someone else is making money off of it. There are a bunch of lawsuits currently churning through courts in various jurisdictions claiming otherwise, but let us hope that they all get thrown out like the garbage they are because the implications of them succeeding are terrible.
The world is not all about money. Art is not all about money. It’s disappointing how quickly and easily masses of people started calling for their rights to be taken away in exchange for the sliver of a fraction of a penny that they think they can now somehow extract. The offense they claim to feel over someone else making something valuable out of something that is free. How dare they.
And don’t even get me started about the performative environmental ignorance around the “they’re disintegrating all the water!” And “each image generation could power billions of homes!” Nonsense.