alt Hacker NewsI know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it?
I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books.
Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it.
EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so down I go.
Replies
The human savant will remember where they read it and give you credit. It might lead more people to read your work, and ultimately you make money.
The AI won't even know where the page of text it's seeing came from, and people will avoid your book as they can just ask the AI. So you make less money. (Talking about specialized technical books here.)
There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional.
A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.
No one is asking human savants about what they read 1 million times per day.
Suppose they did, and some guy was filling stadiums regularly to hear him recite an entire audio book. That would probably get the attention of someone's lawyers.
reading it after stealing it: gray area. producing & monetizing competing works devaluing the original is a problem
Why should an AI have the same rights as a human?
How about then to grant AI all other rights, for example, to allow voting?(sarcasm)
> I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it?
Yes it's very different. Humans need to eat, sleep, and pay taxes. You also have to pay them competitive wages.
I had to buy the copyrighted material before reading it... Meta apparently operates in a different legal system than me. That's my issue with it.