• Sam :blobhaj_flag_autism:@allthingstech.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    @zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally

    Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*

    I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I was narrowly taking issue with the comparison to how humans learn, I really don’t care about copyrights.

      • @zbyte64 where am I wrong? The process is effectively the same: you get a set of training data (a textbook) and a set of validation data (a test) and voila, I’m trained

        To learn how to draw an image of a thing, you look at the thing a lot (training data) and try sketching it out (validation data) until it’s right

        How the data is acquired is irrelevant, I can pirate the textbook or trespass to find a particular flower, that doesn’t mean I’m learning differently than someone who paid for it

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Do we assume everything read in a textbook is correct? When we get feedback on drawing, do we accept the feedback as always correct and applicable? We filter and groom data for the AI so it doesn’t need to learn these things.