So…. not a legitimate business then.
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
1580 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
3580 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Isn't copyright about the right to make and distribute or sell copies or the lack there of? As long as they can prevent jailbreaking the AI, reading copyrighted material and learning from it to produce something else is not a copyright violation.
I'm less worried about a system that learns from the information and then incorporates it when it has to provide an answer (ex. learning facts) than I am of something that steals someone's likeness, something we've clearly have established people have a right to (ex. voice acting, action figures, and sports video games). And by that extension/logic, I am concerned as to whether AI that is trained to produce something in the style of someone else, especially in digital/visual art also violates the likeness principle logically and maybe even comes close to violating copyright law.
But at the same time, I'm a skeptic of software patents and api/UeX copyrighs. So I don't know. Shit gets complicated.
I still think AI should get rid of mundane, repetitive, boring tasks. But it shouldn't be eliminating creative, fun asks. It should improve productivity without replacing or reducing the value of the labor of the scientist/artist/physician. But if AI replaced scribes and constructionists in order to make doctors more productive and able to spend more time with patients instead of documenting everything, then that would be the ideal use of this stuff.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bet they get the pass that the Internet Archive didn't.
Sounds like the free market has spoken. Please die quickly, ""AI"" industry
Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?
How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.
I think copyright has value, but I don't think it has as much value as we're giving it.
Honestly with the current pace of cultural output we're at, even 5 years feels generous. What was made in 2019 that still seems terribly relevant... Is there still a brisk trade in Frozen II merch I'm not aware of?
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh no. Anyway...
My goodness! This is unfair! What kind of Mickey Mouse rule is this anyway?!
In a way this thread is heart-warming. There are so many different people here - liberals, socialists, anarchists, communists, progressives, ... - and yet they can all agree on 1 fundamental ethical principle: The absolute sanctity of intellectual property.
Depending on how important these large language models end up being to society, I'd rather everyone be able to freely use copyrighted works to train them, rather than reserve their use solely for the corporations rich enough to pay for the licensing or lucky enough to already have the rights to a trove of source material
OpenAI losing this battle is how we ensure that the only people that can legally train these things are the Microsofts, Googles, and the Adobes of the world so, bizarrely, as much as I think OpenAI has turned into greedy corpo scum, I feel compelled to side with them here
the corporations rich enough to pay for the licensing or lucky enough to already have the rights to a trove of source material
Oh, don't worry about them. Start-ups can get VC funding to pay for the licenses. Eventually we all pay. The likes of Sam Altman can get rich. The venture capitalists can get rich. All while the heirs of the NYT or Getty empires get richer still. Everyone will be rich. Except us, of course. It's very ethical. We all want ethical AI and that means capitalist AI.
The way I see it, creatives lose no matter what here, so they can either lose and only the corpos benefit, or they can lose and everyone benefits
More of “you don’t get to profit off violating it and act like you’re better than a dude selling burned DVDs”
Now, now, let's not get hung upon our differences. We all took different journeys to get here. The important thing is that we all agree now that property owners are entitled to a share of the money that other people make with their labor. Obviously only intellectual property owners. I'm sure those filthy landlords are still parasites. It's not like apartments can be copied at almost 0 cost.
Wow, that's a shame. Anyway, take all his money and throw him in a ditch someplace.
that guy in that picture looks like the "unwanted house guest" from those memes from 10 years ago
Sigh... Fine.
I'll do it myself.
I don't see it though, personally.
What do you mean? They're the same picture.
One of them looks happy to see you
load more comments
(1 replies)