Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey are suing OpenAI and Meta over violation of their copyrighted books. The trio says their works were pulled from illegal “shadow libraries” without their consent.

    • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unworkable copyright maximalist take that wouldn’t help artists but would further entrench corporate IP holders.

        • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          What, explain why “artists should pay artists that they study” is an unworkable copyright maximalist take? No, that’s self evident. How it won’t actually help artists, but would further entrench the corporate IP hoarders? No, I won’t do that either. It’s self evident. If your position is literally that artists should pay the artists that inspire them and that they study, you’re a deeply unserious person whose position doesn’t deserve to be seriously debated.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uh huh. So you don’t actually want to discuss, you just want to be insulting and shut down conversation?

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No one is insulting you. How are you going to pay he unnumbered generations of humanity from which art has grown?

                  It’s a nonsense suggestion

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

                    It’s quite insulting when you dismiss without any greater reasoning than naming an argument. It’s subtle, but it wouldn’t exactly fly in any kind of serious rl discussion. There’s a difference between addressing an argument and simply calling it names and refusing to provide elaboration.

                    Obviously you can’t pay dead people, nor did I say you had to. You could easily simply start, without making it retroactive.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I find that a little bit of a specious argument actually. An LLM is not a person, it is itself a commercial derivative. Because it is created for profit and capable of outproducing any human by many orders of magnitude, I think comparing it to human training is a little simplistic and deceptive.