One of the arguments made for Reddit’s API changes is that they are now the go to place for LLM training data (e.g. for ChatGPT).

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_the_community_about_changes_to_our_api/jnk9izp/?context=3

I haven’t seen a whole lot of discussion around this and would like to hear people’s opinions. Are you concerned about your posts being used for LLM training? Do you not care? Do you prefer that your comments are available to train open source LLMs?

(I will post my personal opinion in a comment so it can be up/down voted separately)

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

    I don’t care if people train models off my posts. I released the content into the wild; I don’t much care what happens to it after that. Attribution of direct quotes is nice to have, but twiddling some weights in a language model is far too abstruse for me to care about.

    And sure, if openAI is inhaling all of reddit, it’s reasonable to charge for that.

    But shutting down third-party apps was never about that.

  • meli nasa@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really care to be honest. If something’s public on social media, it’s public, and it’s no longer on you to decide how it will be used. I really like the Stack Exchange policy that all posts are publicized under a Creative Commons license. Though they seem hell-bent on killing that, too.

    • FearTheCron@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I think a creative commons style license makes sense and that was always my intent when posting things. However, when you post creative commons content, you do get to decide the restrictions (e.g. commercial or noncommercial).

      I think its currently an open question how this applies to generative AI and LLMs. Perhaps the output of generative AI should retain the license of the training data? Or perhaps that is overly restrictive? There are those who believe that training commercial generative AI on data under permissive licenses is a problem.

      https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/12/github_microsoft_openai_copilot/

      https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/lensas-a-i-avatars-the-uncomfortable-places-their-magic-comes-from.html

      I am not really sure where I stand on the overall issue. But the worst case scenario in my opinion is one where open source generative AI is hobbled by regulation paving the way for corporate control. My biggest fear about the Reddit API changes prevent anyone except Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, etc from using user comments as a training set.

      • meli nasa@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know either. I’ll agree with you though that not restricting AI so that only big tech companies who have lots of lawyers can research it (and not release it) is the worst case scenario. And I fear that it’s either that or complete dysregulation. OpenAI etc. just have too much money for lobbying, and given this is all happening in the US, which seems to be quite susceptible to monetary influence in politics, so I doubt any laws are gonna be passed to restrict them. Besides, there’s the national interest in not letting China take the lead.