Some argue that bots should be entitled to ingest any content they see, because people can.

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don't we humans derive from our trained dataset: our lives?

    If you had a human with no "trained dataset" they would have only just been born. But even then you run into an issue there as it's been shown that fetuses respond to audio stimulation while they're in the womb.

    The question of consciousness is a really hard one for sure that we may never have an answer that everyone agrees on.

    Right now we're in the infant days of AI.

    • RickRussell_CA@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be clear, I don't think the fundamental issue is whether humans have a training dataset. We do. And it includes copyrighted work. It also includes our unique sensory perceptions and lots of stuff that is definitely NOT the result of someone else's work. I don't think anyone would dispute that copyrighted text, pictures, sounds are integrated into human consciousness.

      The question is whether it is ethical, and should it be legal, to feed copyrighted works into an AI training dataset and use that AI to produce material that replaces, displaces, or competes with the copyrighted work used to train it. Should it be legal to distribute or publish that AI-produced material at all if the copyright holder objects to the use of their work in an AI training dataset? (I concede that these may be two separate, but closely related, questions.)