• ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

    Training databases should be ethically sourced from opt in programs, that some companies are already doing, such as Adobe.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

      How can one prove that their content is being used to train the LLM though, rather than something that’s derivative of their content like reviews of it?

      • Storksforlegs@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        there is already lots of evidence that they have scraped copyrighted art and photographs for their datasets.

      • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, the company has the training data, so I would imagine that will be part of discovery phase of the lawsuit.

        It will be a very quick case if OpenAI provides their training data and there is no data from Libgen and Z-library included in it.