this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
220 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37727 readers
707 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

How can one prove that their content is being used to train the LLM though, rather than something that's derivative of their content like reviews of it?

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

there is already lots of evidence that they have scraped copyrighted art and photographs for their datasets.

Well, the company has the training data, so I would imagine that will be part of discovery phase of the lawsuit.

It will be a very quick case if OpenAI provides their training data and there is no data from Libgen and Z-library included in it.