Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.

  • lloram239@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    should be open source by law.

    That doesn’t make sense. The “source” of the AI model is the publically available information, which the creators have no right to redistribute.

    The rules of Open Source simply do not work for AI models. You’d have to come up with some other rules.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole legal situation around AI models isn’t clear and common Open Source licenses are an ill fit for them because you aren’t distributing the source, but just a binary blob. You can’t just take any random accumulation of data and slap a Open Source license on it, especially when that accumulation is the result of proprietary data, incompatible licenses and all that.

        Most people don’t care and just remix everything as they please, but just because you can download for free something doesn’t make it Open Source. Furthermore a lot of the models exclude commercial use or otherwise restrict the use in ways that are incompatible with the Open Source definition.

        Has any of the model made it into Debian yet?

      • dack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you define as “source” for an AI model? Training code? Training data set?

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it ought to be owned by the people who contributed the work that trained it. But that’s socialism. … No really, that would literally be socialism.