• webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The point that was being made was that public available data includes a whole lot amount of copyrighted data to begin with and its pretty much impossible to filter it out. Grand example, the Eiffel tower in Paris is not copyright protected, but the lights on it are so you can only using pictures of the Eiffel tower during the day, if the picture itself isn’t copyright protected by the original photographer. Copyright law has all these complex caveat and exception that make it impossible to tell in glance whether or not it is protected.

    This in turn means, if AI cannot legally train on copyrighted materials it finds online without paying huge sums of money then effectively only mega corporation who can pay copyright fines as cost of business will be able to afford training decent AI.

    The only other option to produce any ai of such type is a very narrow curated set of known materials with a public use license but that is not going to get you anything competent on its own.

    EDIT: In case it isn’t clear i am clarifying what i understood from Grimy@lemmy.world comment, not adding to it.

    • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I didn’t want any of this shit. IDGAF if we don’t have AI. I’m still not sure the internet actually improved anything, let alone what the benefits of AI are supposed to be.