• BJW@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You don’t need consent to learn from something, yeah? Or do artists need consent to learn by watching their movies? Do authors need consent to learn by reading books? It’s machine LEARNING, not machine copying.

    • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yes, courses and materials coming with terms and conditions for its use is not really a new concept for most reasonable people.

      • BJW@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Then, I guess if a course or material owner agrees with your logic, and have a complaint then they should file a lawsuit and let the legal process carry out. In my own judgement, nothing unethical occurred and complaints such as your own are nonsensical. It’s like complaining that someone in a painting looks like you, and you know the painter has seen you before, so the painting must therefore be based on a sighting of you in public, and you demand restitution for unwittingly being their inspiration without giving them your consent to inspire them. Arguing that the painter should have contacted you, and sought permission to be inspired by your public appearance.

        • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Yeah, I already got the impression that you didn’t give a shit about the consent side from your earlier posts.

          • BJW@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Let’s say your comment isn’t facetious, and you actually believe this is a reasonable thing to request… You believe that the original LLM creators should have contacted each and every person on the Internet, tracked every single poster down, and got them to sign a consent form allowing the information they had already made publicly available to be used to educate a large language model? You believe that is both reasonable and feasible?

            • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              It’s the same completely reasonable standards we hold for everybody else? I am just as curious as you are. Does the fact that “‘not guzzling all the information and media from people who specifically don’t want them to’ is such a difficult and infeasible proposition that they can’t possibly honor it” not set off any alarm bells for you? morally?

              • BJW@lemmus.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                No, because the information does not disappear. It is not gone. It is unchanged. The availability is the same before, as after. The number of people with access to the information “guzzled” is unaffected. I don’t know how many different ways to say “it doesn’t matter” there are.

                • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 hours ago

                  I got that much. I’m not sure why you were asking whether I was being facetious or not considering that I initially (and correctly) clocked you as not giving a shit about such consent. And going back to the original post, you really don’t seem any different from your typical ai bro in your careless attitude towards the art/textbooks/family photos your ai models guzzle up during traning. Why pretend otherwise?

                  • BJW@lemmus.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

                    I was asking if you were being facetious because it’s such a ridiculous ask. It would be literally impossible. Large swathes of the Internet are completely random, so there would be no way to know who to even contact. Even if it wasn’t impossible from that aspect, many of those you’d need to contact won’t still be alive, or in a mental state in which they can even give consent. Ignoring both of those challenges, the logistics of contacting everyone and tracking who had and had not responded would be a Herculean effort. It’s just a bonkers thing to ask that I had to assume you were just saying shit to rile me up, because the alternative was not flattering to your mental capabilities.

                    What the hell is a “typical AI bro” and why do you feel the need to use immature nicknames for people? Should I say “you are such a typical AI hoe” to mean the opposite of whatever you mean?

                    If the art/textbooks/family photos are unchanged, still available, and in no way harmed, why does it even matter? There’s literally no way to know if any given image was even used. If they didn’t tell you, it would be impossible to know. Asking for consent for something that doesn’t change anything and is impossible to discern even happened is laughable. Why would literally anyone care?

                    It’s like saying you need to get consent from someone to think about them.