You made an incredibly strong statement that is much broader than what we are talking about. I am pointing out various cases where I think that broadness is incorrect, I am not equating the two.

I do not think that, if you read, say, https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... , and then later, a friend asks you "hey, should I use String or &str here?" that you need my consent to go "at the start, just use String" instead of "at the start, just use String, like Steve Klabnik says in https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... ". And if they say "hey that's a great idea, thank you" I don't think you're a bad person if you say "you're welcome" without "you should really be saying welcome to Steve Klabnik."

It is of course nice if you happen to do so, but I think framing it as a consent issue is the wrong way to think about it.

We recognize that this is different than simply publishing the exact contents of the blog post on your blog and calling it yours, because it is! To me, an LLM is a transformative derivative work, not an exact copy. Because my words are not in there, they are not being copied.

But again, I am not telling anyone else that they must agree with me. Simply stating my own relationship with my own creative output.

▲

sillysaurusx 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just wanted to compliment you on your classy attitude and style, along with your solid points. It’s not easy to take that side of the debate. Cheers.

▲

GeoAtreides 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

he doesn't have solid points, he conflates fair use with free use (?), ignores thousands of years of attribution history, and equates normal human to human learning with corporate LLMs training on original content (without consent). Great presentation, like you said, to cover the logical defects.

▲

steveklabnik 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I did say "free use" instead of "fair use," yeah. That's my mistake, thank you for the correction. If I could edit my original comment, I would, mea culpa. Typos happen.

▲

sillysaurusx 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Fair use of training data hasn’t yet been settled in court. People here are treating it like it has been. But no amount of wishful thinking or moral arguments will change a verdict saying it’s fine for training data to be used as it has been.

Until that question is settled, it’s disingenuous to dismiss his points out of hand as conflating fair use or ignoring consent.

	▲	steveklabnik 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Even beyond that, the initial legal opinion we do have did in fact point to training being fair use: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-wins-key-... However, I don't feel comfortable suggesting that this is settled just yet, one district judge's opinion does not mean that other future cases may disagree, or we may at some point get explicit legislation one way or the other.

▲

lelanthran 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But again, I am not telling anyone else that they must agree with me. Simply stating my own relationship with my own creative output.

Look, I'm not saying that you are doing that, I'm pointing out that "Silence is consent" is not as strong an argument that many think it is.