I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.

while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you worked hard, learned a craft, and spent countless hours honing it and I took your work without asking you and used it to enrich myself and my talentless tech bro buddies, how would you feel?

    • MTK@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It would suck, but I wouldn’t blame others for enjoying a service that they perceive as convenient. Of course I would blame you for theft/piracy, as I think artists should against illegally trained models.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You don’t make LLMs with the enormous amount of training data they require to work well without theft/piracy.

        Are you starting to understand why people are upset about this?