Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Metalpoet :pentagram: (metalpoetnl@metalhead.club)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 18:59:21 JST Metalpoet :pentagram:

   • Cory Doctorow

   @pluralistic your latest collumn had me thinking. We use books to train inteligences now - it's one of their main uses and always has been. Nobody has ever suggested that, if you're going to use a book to teach people with, you need to pay for more than buying them a copy of the book.

   I fully expect AI companies to raise that argument in their lawsuits: that using a book to learn is definitely not a copyrightable activity since they've always been used that way. Indeed, one of the groups of people who MOST rely on books to learn: is future authors.

   Great readers make great writers after all.
   As writers, we learn from other writers, by reading their books.

   • Embed this notice
     Metalpoet :pentagram: (metalpoetnl@metalhead.club)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 18:59:18 JST Metalpoet :pentagram:

     in reply to

     • Cory Doctorow

     @pluralistic which I think adds yet another reason I support your view that we should treat the question of AI training as a labour rights discussion rather than a copyright discussion.

     It's not at all clear to me that training AI is a copyrightable activity anymore than training humans is - or should be.

     But labour doesn't have that question at all. Labour is first and foremost about human needs.

     And making art is definitely a human need.

     Making art is what made us who we are as a species.
     Most human endeavours we do to survive. But not art: we don't make art to survive, we survive to make art.

     if we no longer make art, will we really exist at all ?

   • Embed this notice
     Metalpoet :pentagram: (metalpoetnl@metalhead.club)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 18:59:20 JST Metalpoet :pentagram:

     in reply to

     • Cory Doctorow

     @pluralistic so I fully expect them to argue that, for an AI to be trained on your book is no different than for a kid in a creative writing class to read your book and learn techniques they will later use in their own writing.

     Now, of course, AI isn't actually intelligent. I don't know if true AI is possible but we both agree that we definitely haven't achieved anything close to it yet.

     One could therefore argue that "training AI' is not like learning because it's not a real intelligence and isn't capable of real creative development on top of what it learned.

     But do we really want governments deciding who or what is sentient ? What could go wrong, eh ?

     Cory Doctorow and Jure Repinc :linux: :kde: repeated this.