This isn't just seen in the laws. This kind of thing is happening within every perspective imaginable. One example is language, as certain words or quotes are purposly stripped off their original meaning to primarily deceive and fearmonger the people.
The same company went to court claiming that "GPT" (Generative Pre-trained Transformer, the generic term for the type of LLM most AI chatbots are) is a trademark that no one else can use, because their platform has it in the name.
That's like if Burger King were to say "burger" is their company's trademark, so no one else is allowed to call their meat patty sandwiches "burgers."
Meanwhile, tech companies (including OpenAI) are pirating data to use to train their models, with the explicit intention of generating profit from them, and pretending they have an inalienable right to do so.
They're ingesting archives full of stolen IP, and raising a fuss about three letters...
I think in that movie with NOT THE BEES, the basket was placed over the head. While I'd support that happening too, I'm thinking more on the line of gravity placing the head into the wicker basket.
I think part of the issue is it's relatively new, new things don't have laws written about them and haven't been tried in court. So, until one of the copyright holders want to push the issue it's sort of like "well, maybe it's illegal, maybe it's not."
And of course the copyright holders just make deals so that they get paid and they move on with life (Disney).
No. It is not clear. I read books and train myself from them, and then teach others for money. That's legal... Obviously computers are not humans, but the parallel is there. So it's not clear what the law is or ought to be.
Interesting point. But you didn't steal all those books. I think that's the problem. If you couldn't access a book you might pirate it, But these guys pirated them all, all the video all the books all the art all the photos all the conversations. They used copyrighted works to train their models.
This seems like the key point. The teacher who buys a text book to share it's contents with others is the intended use of the content. There's clearly no theft there. If the creators of all this content had genuinely intended it to be used this way then there would be no problem. But the vast majority of artists/authors/creators seem to be against the use of their work like this (perhaps given appropriate compensation they could have been brought on side?)
This logic appeals to me but I'm curious how it could work legally as well as potential side effects. It seems likely that legal arguments would ensue over intended use of content, and it doesn't seem like it should be illegal to use some created work in a new or unintended manner.
I think the overall goals are to encourage creative and academic work (which requires funding creators), discourage centralization of knowledge (prevent leverage over and manipulation of populace), encourage distrust of llm output without source references in output, and discourage overuse of generative AI. I'm sure there are more, but that's what comes to mind.
Same energy as a person I know who was complaining that their business can't afford to expand if they have to offer healthcare plans to their employees.
I bet he's going to use the absolutely mind boggingly mentally challenged remarks he's previously uttered as a legal defense for "people shouldn't have given me all that money, that's all on them".
Things like (paraphrasing, because I cannot be bothered to look up the clips of this imbecile): "We are out of electrons" as a response to "why not manufacture more hardware chips". Or the hilarious "Once we have a working AGI, we're going to ask it how to make a return on all these absurd investments", to a group of investors....
I feel like all the rich and powerful are the dumbest fuckers in this planet, who just grifted their way.
Car theft laws merely protect the established players in the industry. If it was legal everybody and their uncle would be doing it, diluting the margins.
They just need to train it like humans. Make it a robot and send it out in the world, send it to school. They won't because that's too slow and the robot will get its ass kicked by the bully robots or be shot by the school shooter robots. Maybe AI is not AI because it can't learn on its own it has to be spoon fed info.
Lol he'll juet have to sit down and write his own booka for them to train off of, paint his own pictures for them to imitate, sing his owm songs for them to clavicate in a whirring tempest of metal flesh cords.
Ok. Any Joe with a GPU can train an AI. So I guess copyright is dead. You see my Unraid with 64TB of copyrighted material. All for AI training I'm doing.
It's race over with him the winner. Open source can't afford that data. Google, OpenAI and Anthropic would be the only ones able to train a "legal" model. Chinese models would get banned the day after.
I mean. There are other models that already only train on their own legally held data. Getty Images, and Shutter Stock for instance.
The main problem is that this is in direct reaction to other models scraping them for training data and them trying to monetize their own IP as a result.
Next thing those AI-companies are gonna do is to bribe the government into forcing regular companies to make their intranets accessible. Because those intranets are part of the deep web, and the deep web is much larger than the regular web. So a lot more training data is in them.
Don't hate AI because copyright is being violated. Copyright was just invented and expanded to protect corporate profits. It has never and will never be something to protect artists.
They will do the same here. Copyright will be changed to favor corporate profits. The only thing that will happen is that Disney and other big media corporations want a piece of the pie. No law favouring copyright protection with AI will EVER be for artists benefits.
This is just corporate infighting. They'll definitely say that it's to "protect artists". It's not. Copyright never has been about protecting artists.
I bet the only reason we have access to AI right now is to entice us with it... Once they sort out laws and how they can use if for "them" it'll be off limits to the common person.
And you also know it will be fully raped with limits, ads, and algorithms.
To the common person. Maybe. But China seems to be pretty willing to fuck with America for the time being and keeps creating more efficient and more application specific AI models (while the US is just chasing some dream of a generalized AI that is hitting a brick wall hard).
I think the actual useful AI models we use in 10 years will be much more like what China is focusing on; and a generalized AI will not actually be achievable.
I promise that if Sam Altman is sent to (above minimum-security) prison for piracy, I will not complain about copyright law a single time until the day he is released.
If the developers who made the work are not being compensated properly and the publishers are charging predatory rates, then pirate away.
If the publishers themselves who have more than the means to actually pay the residuals for the work, are they themselves pirating, and then reselling the product? Up to you where your moral compass is on that.
There are ways of donating directly to creators that aren’t just pirating their work, so hope we all advocate for that just as much. It’s Bandcamp Friday today by the way.
Must be sampling error. Car thieves aren't that agreeable. Has to be closer to 9/10. Even 1/10 dentists don't agree that using toothpaste is important.
This Ai is an amazing concept but humanity doesn't deserve it until they can get along and live peacefully.
All peace up to this day feels like a soggy bandaid and false gimmick.
Ai isn't even going to be used for good, it's going to be implemented for power and control and the ideology of whoever the winner is of the make believe insecure games they play.
60 Comments
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 140 pts · 184d
I’m not pirating movies, I’m training my brain to imagine films and come up with new ones.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 46 pts · 184d
Put a YOLO object detection training script on your PC. Boom! All my NAS is for training AI.
Like, I know that's not how laws work. Laws work to protect rich corporations and profits. But that's the logic we got here.
ButteryMonkey@piefed.social · 13 pts · 184d
I would like to see someone unrelated to one of those big companies use that defense, just to see what happens..
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 184d
Yeah. Unfortunately laws are written to protect companies and ensure those same companies can use the same law to punish individuals
Virtvirt588@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 184d
This isn't just seen in the laws. This kind of thing is happening within every perspective imaginable. One example is language, as certain words or quotes are purposly stripped off their original meaning to primarily deceive and fearmonger the people.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 184d
The same company went to court claiming that "GPT" (Generative Pre-trained Transformer, the generic term for the type of LLM most AI chatbots are) is a trademark that no one else can use, because their platform has it in the name.
That's like if Burger King were to say "burger" is their company's trademark, so no one else is allowed to call their meat patty sandwiches "burgers."
Meanwhile, tech companies (including OpenAI) are pirating data to use to train their models, with the explicit intention of generating profit from them, and pretending they have an inalienable right to do so.
They're ingesting archives full of stolen IP, and raising a fuss about three letters...
Reygle@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 184d
I hope that's the face he makes when his head falls in a wicker basket one of these days.
danekrae@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 184d
That would require people doing more than protest. What would the circumstances be, where americans would do more than just protest?
Reygle@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 184d
That's a damn good question I really wish I had an answer to.
danekrae@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 184d
It might be worth meditating on.
Reygle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
Problem here is it's not me who needs to think on it, it's the unthinking who will refuse to.
danekrae@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Even one person can make a difference.
lemmywinksthegerbilking@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 184d
martial law unfortunately
chaogomu@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 184d
Canceled elections would do it, but only after the election itself.
Which would then lead to martial law.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 184d
Like the movie with the bees?
danekrae@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 184d
Oh yeah, I've seen it.
Widdershins@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
I don't have a copy of Bee Movie is it still up on PornHub?
Reygle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 184d
I think in that movie with NOT THE BEES, the basket was placed over the head. While I'd support that happening too, I'm thinking more on the line of gravity placing the head into the wicker basket.
yakko@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 184d
He really does always look like someone put a phone in his face showing goatse
zakobjoa@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 184d
My cocaine business just doesn't scale right with all these "laws" inhibiting my growth.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 184d
"Say my name"
"You're @zakobjoa@lemmy.world, aren't you?"
"You're goddamn right"
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 41 pts · 184d
I don't get how they're allowed to do this in the first place.
People are using LLM's instead of visiting websites, reading books, or watching videos. And lots of people are PAYING AI companies for this.
It's such a clear case of copyright infringement, and it's leading to countless losses for creators.
can@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 184d
Our society is structured in a way that leads to anyone who could disallow it to not do so
Bongles@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 184d
I think part of the issue is it's relatively new, new things don't have laws written about them and haven't been tried in court. So, until one of the copyright holders want to push the issue it's sort of like "well, maybe it's illegal, maybe it's not."
And of course the copyright holders just make deals so that they get paid and they move on with life (Disney).
fodor@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 183d
No. It is not clear. I read books and train myself from them, and then teach others for money. That's legal... Obviously computers are not humans, but the parallel is there. So it's not clear what the law is or ought to be.
Candice_the_elephant@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 183d
Interesting point. But you didn't steal all those books. I think that's the problem. If you couldn't access a book you might pirate it, But these guys pirated them all, all the video all the books all the art all the photos all the conversations. They used copyrighted works to train their models.
julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 183d
This seems like the key point. The teacher who buys a text book to share it's contents with others is the intended use of the content. There's clearly no theft there. If the creators of all this content had genuinely intended it to be used this way then there would be no problem. But the vast majority of artists/authors/creators seem to be against the use of their work like this (perhaps given appropriate compensation they could have been brought on side?)
banshee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 183d
This logic appeals to me but I'm curious how it could work legally as well as potential side effects. It seems likely that legal arguments would ensue over intended use of content, and it doesn't seem like it should be illegal to use some created work in a new or unintended manner.
I think the overall goals are to encourage creative and academic work (which requires funding creators), discourage centralization of knowledge (prevent leverage over and manipulation of populace), encourage distrust of llm output without source references in output, and discourage overuse of generative AI. I'm sure there are more, but that's what comes to mind.
DiscussionBear@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 183d
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 28 pts · 183d
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 184d
Same energy as a person I know who was complaining that their business can't afford to expand if they have to offer healthcare plans to their employees.
jdr8@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 183d
So what they doing is basically piracy.
And not just them, any AI in that so called “race” is allegedly doing it.
So why do we get punished if we download something from the Internet?
lectricleopard@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 184d
Just listen to your own words dude. Your so close.
laranis@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 184d
I bet this fucker will beg for a ruling that his business model is illegal so that he has something to blame other than his own incompetent bullshit.
okamiueru@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 183d
I bet he's going to use the absolutely mind boggingly mentally challenged remarks he's previously uttered as a legal defense for "people shouldn't have given me all that money, that's all on them".
Things like (paraphrasing, because I cannot be bothered to look up the clips of this imbecile): "We are out of electrons" as a response to "why not manufacture more hardware chips". Or the hilarious "Once we have a working AGI, we're going to ask it how to make a return on all these absurd investments", to a group of investors....
I feel like all the rich and powerful are the dumbest fuckers in this planet, who just grifted their way.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 184d
10 out of 10 pedofile oligarchs agree
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 184d
Hey we need your private data to train our AIs on.
Ok, but I need your private data too.
Hell no...
BigDiction@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 184d
Car theft laws merely protect the established players in the industry. If it was legal everybody and their uncle would be doing it, diluting the margins.
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 183d
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 184d
They just need to train it like humans. Make it a robot and send it out in the world, send it to school. They won't because that's too slow and the robot will get its ass kicked by the bully robots or be shot by the school shooter robots. Maybe AI is not AI because it can't learn on its own it has to be spoon fed info.
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 184d
Why should I care if it's no longer Open?
Reygle@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 184d
Just a thought: How can any AI tech ever be "open" when it can't exist in the first place without rampant theft?
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 183d
The entire spirit of Neoliberal Capitalism is that Regulations and Enforcement of Regulations are bad for business and shouldn't be done.
This guys' take is pretty much just a continuation of the takes of lots of publicly celebrated CEOs of the last 4 decades.
Swaus01@piefed.social · 7 pts · 184d
Lol he'll juet have to sit down and write his own booka for them to train off of, paint his own pictures for them to imitate, sing his owm songs for them to clavicate in a whirring tempest of metal flesh cords.
He'll have to work for once in his life.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 184d
Ok. Any Joe with a GPU can train an AI. So I guess copyright is dead. You see my Unraid with 64TB of copyrighted material. All for AI training I'm doing.
pimpampoom@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 183d
I can’t see his face anymore
Grimy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 184d
It's race over with him the winner. Open source can't afford that data. Google, OpenAI and Anthropic would be the only ones able to train a "legal" model. Chinese models would get banned the day after.
deliriousdreams@fedia.io · 1 pts · 184d
I mean. There are other models that already only train on their own legally held data. Getty Images, and Shutter Stock for instance.
The main problem is that this is in direct reaction to other models scraping them for training data and them trying to monetize their own IP as a result.
bridgeburner@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 183d
Next thing those AI-companies are gonna do is to bribe the government into forcing regular companies to make their intranets accessible. Because those intranets are part of the deep web, and the deep web is much larger than the regular web. So a lot more training data is in them.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 184d
Don't hate AI because copyright is being violated. Copyright was just invented and expanded to protect corporate profits. It has never and will never be something to protect artists.
They will do the same here. Copyright will be changed to favor corporate profits. The only thing that will happen is that Disney and other big media corporations want a piece of the pie. No law favouring copyright protection with AI will EVER be for artists benefits.
This is just corporate infighting. They'll definitely say that it's to "protect artists". It's not. Copyright never has been about protecting artists.
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 184d
I bet the only reason we have access to AI right now is to entice us with it... Once they sort out laws and how they can use if for "them" it'll be off limits to the common person.
And you also know it will be fully raped with limits, ads, and algorithms.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 183d
To the common person. Maybe. But China seems to be pretty willing to fuck with America for the time being and keeps creating more efficient and more application specific AI models (while the US is just chasing some dream of a generalized AI that is hitting a brick wall hard).
I think the actual useful AI models we use in 10 years will be much more like what China is focusing on; and a generalized AI will not actually be achievable.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 183d
IOW we’ve already stolen everything we think is of value and want to pull up the ladder on any competitors.
UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 183d
I'm confused Lemmy... Is it okay to pirate content or is it not okay?
sus@programming.dev · 8 pts · 183d
I promise that if Sam Altman is sent to (above minimum-security) prison for piracy, I will not complain about copyright law a single time until the day he is released.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 183d
If the developers who made the work are not being compensated properly and the publishers are charging predatory rates, then pirate away.
If the publishers themselves who have more than the means to actually pay the residuals for the work, are they themselves pirating, and then reselling the product? Up to you where your moral compass is on that.
nightlily@leminal.space · 4 pts · 183d
There are ways of donating directly to creators that aren’t just pirating their work, so hope we all advocate for that just as much. It’s Bandcamp Friday today by the way.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 183d
I agree completely
CoffeeSoldier@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 184d
Must be sampling error. Car thieves aren't that agreeable. Has to be closer to 9/10. Even 1/10 dentists don't agree that using toothpaste is important.
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Honestly everyone and their mother sucks with this.
Corporation who violate copyright suck.
People who violate copyright suck.
Everyone sucks with copyright and are like Republicans and abortions who think their violations are the only morally acceptable violations.
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 184d
This Ai is an amazing concept but humanity doesn't deserve it until they can get along and live peacefully.
All peace up to this day feels like a soggy bandaid and false gimmick.
Ai isn't even going to be used for good, it's going to be implemented for power and control and the ideology of whoever the winner is of the make believe insecure games they play.