• Willie@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Make note about what? This is a good thing. They went through the efforts to acquire the rights for the training data, and people might have even been paid for the original work.

    It’s not like this stops someone from paying artists or photographers to make art or photos for their training data, or creating some sort of group where contributors actively give the rights to their own artwork or photos for a model, like some sort of open source project kind of thing, people love that kind of stuff! You’re just acting like this is some awful thing, when it’s completely fine, and the way it should be.

    • lemonflavoured@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To me the obvious answer would be to pay people a small amount per photo for pictures of various things and then use that as training data.

      • lps2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s expensive and companies would rather not pay while the law is unclear on using copywrited images in a training set

        • lemonflavoured@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The thing is that for medium to large companies it’s probably less expensive to pay people a nominal fee for pictures than it would be to risk being sued by, say, Disney, Nintendo, WWE or Games Workshop (to use some famously litigious companies).

          • lps2@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hope that’s the direction we head that way artists are appropriately compensated for their work. We’ll see entire libraries/brokers pop up that grant LLM makers access to work for a fee.