Thank you for the fact check. Lemmy has a serious issue with bogus sensationalized headlines with no context offered.

I mean, that's certainly your interpretation. An incorrect one, in my opinion, but nevertheless, you're entitled to it.

More importantly, it's completely beside the point of what I was trying to communicate and has very little relevance to the actual discussion.

It doesn't matter who creates the media, so long as the result is novel. If I ask an LLM to generate an image of a flower, and that image has never existed before, then it is, by definition, something new. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to call it art. That's your prerogative. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and art is ultimately a subjective designation. I can call something art just as easily as you can refuse to.

And, unfortunately, for both of us, what either of us personally considers art has absolutely no bearing on the novelty, existence, or validity of the resulting creation. Our personal opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant to those questions.

As long as we're in agreement.

Just people living their lives...

The horror the absolute horror!

But what about my beloved HMO? What am I going to do without them and who's going to pay them?!!!!

I don't care what Lemmy is overwhelmingly for or against. At all. I'm going to call out bandwagon bullshit every time I see it for as long as I feel like doing it.

Once again. You should go to that instance and do something about it.

And say what you want about "my opinion" it is correct.

I am on the right platform, and I'll use it whenever and however I see fit, within the TOS I agreed to when I created my account.

Maybe you should run off to Reddit, where you can make some kind of moral stand against the things you disagree with, rather than running around here in your own little yes-man echo chamber.

But they're not selling that content. I cannot begin to tell you how often I encounter this exact line of reasoning.

If a painter creates an original painting inspired by Rembrandt, Rembrandt's estate doesn't receive royalties simply because his work served as inspiration.

LLMs and other AI models generate novel content. They don't simply copy established works and regurgitate them verbatim. The training process allows these models to identify patterns, relationships, and structures in enormous datasets, which they then use to generate new material.

As usual, much of the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform comes from a place of absolute ignorance regarding how these models actually work, how they function, and how they're trained.

Let's assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they're not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)

Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They're not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.

And that's the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn't. You can't argue that it's free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they're using it for a different purpose. That's not how public access works.

So, they're not stealing anything under the assumption we're making here. To answer your original question, no, I don't have an issue with them stealing the internet.

Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there's a lot of really good open source out there.

Not because of plagiarism. It's not concerned about plagiarism. It's concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.

Why do people not know what plagiarism means.