Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by s1artibartfast 667 days ago
I think im with the artists on this one. They had to copy the data for model training, which I think constitutes a commercial use.

If I release software under a non-commercial use license, it is still IP infringement if a company uses it in their business process.
1 comments
cowboylowrez 666 days ago
yeah me too but I guess with the AI craze its an unpopular view. it seems straightforward to me, can these models exist without training on the copyrighted input, if not they should not be able to train on this data and the existing models should be either wiped, or license the input data. if the argument starts comparing AIs with actual humans viewing works then we may as well give AIs the vote.
link
NoMoreNicksLeft 665 days ago
> can these models exist without training on the copyrighted input,

No artists could exist without training on the copyrighted input. They looked at paintings, sculptures, and the like and stored copies in their brain encoded organically. Therefore, natural intelligence is also an infringement.

You use strained, insane logic to try to reach the conclusion you had already decided you wanted to arrive at. You're not a very good thinker.

link
cowboylowrez 656 days ago
didn't know I had any comment replies, sorry for the late ping.

>You use strained, insane logic to try to reach the conclusion you had already decided you wanted to arrive at. You're not a very good thinker.

its also not a big deal because this was not an engaging comment, this is merely insults.

link