this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1222 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

70266 readers
3589 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I have conflicting feelings about this whole thing. If you are selling the result of training like OpenAI does (and every other company), then I feel like it’s absolutely and clearly not fair use. It’s just theft with extra steps.

On the other hand, what about open source projects and individuals who aren’t selling or competing with the owners of the training material? I feel like that would be fair use.

What keeps me up at night is if training is never fair use, then the natural result is that AI becomes monopolized by big companies with deep pockets who can pay for an infinite amount of random content licensing, and then we are all forever at their mercy for this entire branch of technology.

The practical, socioeconomic, and ethical considerations are really complex, but all I ever see discussed are these hard-line binary stances that would only have awful corporate-empowering consequences, either because they can steal content freely or because they are the only ones that will have the resources to control the technology.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh no, not the plagiarizing machine! How are rich hacks going to feign talent now? Pay an artist for it?! Crazy!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Open can suck some dick.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

But how will corporations like Disney survive without copywrites?! Won't someone think about the poor corporations?!

/s

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's called paying for the content

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This.

I support AI, but I don't understand why AI bros are complicating things or making things all-or-nothing.

OpenAI had enough money to hire a hitman on one of their whistleblowers. They can afford to pay for content, lol.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Why? Nothing they've shat out is good for anything anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

If not, AI is dead in the US

Technically, everything you write is copyrighted

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

You don't need to say anything else, I'm already happy with that outcome

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh no, how horrible... AI is dead in the US? How shall we live? /sarcasm

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I’m not an american but losing in that area internationally might be way worse than to fight over training data.

Maybe not paying the full amount of the copyright, but I agree they should compensate the IP holders.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are works that are free to use. They could also compensate copyright holders for their work. As they should since they are profiting from it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm all for compensating, but obviously paying for the full work will never work

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Sounds good, fuck em

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster ~~robot~~ android that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.

Edit: "robot" means "slave"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Fuck OpenAI for stealing the hard work of millions of people

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

Sounds fair, shut it down.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don't care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

They’re all motivated by greed.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago

Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 months ago

TLDR: "we should be able to steal other people's work, or we'll go crying to daddy Trump. But DeepSeek shouldn't be able to steal from the stuff we stole, because China and open source"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

Good. Fuck AI

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›