@Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • 8 days agoJudge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted bookswww.bbc.comexternal-linkmessage-square59arrow-up1199
arrow-up1199external-linkJudge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted bookswww.bbc.com@Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • 8 days agomessage-square59
minus-square@gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish11•8 days agoBecause books are used to train both commercial and open source language models?
minus-squareSentient LoomlinkfedilinkEnglish3•8 days ago used to train both commercial commercial training is, in this case, stealing people’s work for commercial gain and open source language models so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There’s so much of it that there’s no need to steal. ? I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
minus-square@gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish2•8 days ago I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement. I was questioning whether or not you would see that as a benefit. Clearly you don’t. Are you also against libraries letting people borrow books since those are also lost sales for the authors, or are you just a luddite?
minus-squareSentient LoomlinkfedilinkEnglish4•8 days ago libraries letting people borrow books This is so far from analogous that it’s almost a nonsequitur. are you just a luddite? No, and you don’t even believe such nonsense. You’re grasping, ineffectively.
Because books are used to train both commercial and open source language models?
commercial training is, in this case, stealing people’s work for commercial gain
so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There’s so much of it that there’s no need to steal.
I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
I was questioning whether or not you would see that as a benefit. Clearly you don’t.
Are you also against libraries letting people borrow books since those are also lost sales for the authors, or are you just a luddite?
This is so far from analogous that it’s almost a nonsequitur.
No, and you don’t even believe such nonsense. You’re grasping, ineffectively.