Hacker News Reader

That's an absurd idea. The work & knowledge this is trained on is public. You have access to it.

What you didn't make is the AI training process and resulting model. Extremely hard working people built that, and it has value in itself.

Without the AI training process, the model is useless. Otherwise we'd already have been here at GPT-3.

View on HN

> The work & knowledge this is trained on is public.

That's an incredibly generous take. If I'd pulled a fraction of the shenanigans prominent companies have to obtain data I'd be thrown under a prison to the thunderous applause of those who have, and are, doing much worse.

> The work & knowledge this is trained on is public. You have access to it.

I’m interested in how you can support this assertion as it seems at odds with established copyright law

Are ideas copyrightable? If you've read a book that gave you a fresh and new idea, should you send a royalty check to the book publisher every time you use that idea? Obviously tongue in cheek, but I think it highlights the absurdity of all of this, and the absurdity to point to "established" copyright law, established by corporate lawyers jockeying for tithes from the public, humorous.

Very literally works are encapsulated into these models. So literally and encompassing that artists individual signatures are included.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com