> distillation of stealing all of the world's current art

Here's the age-old dilemma, though - how is reading stealing?

mycocola 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think there is a meaningful distinction to be made between a human reading and an AI company consuming data without consent in order to train their models. Certainly if enough people feel the same then what AI companies are doing is "wrong" .

▲

nnevatie 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I get it. However, consuming data without consent is not well defined, when said data is publicly available on the internet. Licenses for code, and not abiding them are a different thing, I think. Most authors (of books) wouldn't credit their inspirations, unless specifically asked about them.

▲

flumpcakes 9 hours ago | parent [-]

An author has lived experiences, including other books they have read, to draw upon to tell a narrative they want to tell (either purely for expression, purely for profit, or more often than not somewhere between).

A machine that chews up the worlds literature and spins out a best guess at what the next word should be does not have intent, and the vast majority of the time is used by unscrupulous people purely for profit and/or deception.

An LLM and a living human being are not the same thing, I am tired of apologists comparing them as if they are.

It's not surprising that a computer (doing trillions of calculations on a billion parameter model that was trained on the world's literature) can string a coherent sentence together...

	▲	rpdillon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is predicated on the belief that the AI is running autonomously without ongoing input over hundreds of interactions to produce the output. In all of the professional contexts where I've leveraged AI, every output is the result of hundreds of back and forth interactions, review, modification, and iteration. Your narrative about next token prediction makes no allowance for this.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]