this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
9 points (84.6% liked)

Technology

60560 readers
4203 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bender223@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

These people are supposedly the smart people in our society. The leaders of industry, but they whine and complain when they are told not to cheat or break the law.

If y'all are so smart, then figure out a different way of creating an A.I. Maybe the large language model, or whatever, isn't the approach you should use. 🤦‍♂️

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I maintain my insistence that you owe me a business model!

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, this headline seems to be editorialized and OpenAI didn't say anything about money or profitability in their arguments.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/

On point 4 they are specifically responding to an inquiry about the feasibility of training models on public domain only and they are basically saying that an LLM trained on only that dataset would be shit. But their argument isn't "you should allow it because we couldn't make money otherwise" their actual argument is more "training LLM with copyrighted material doesn't violate current copyright laws" and further if we changed the law to forbid that it would cripple all LLMs.

On the one hand I think most would agree the current copyright laws are a bit OP anyway - more stuff should probably become public domain much earlier for instance - but most of the world probably also doesn't think training LLMs should be completely free from copyright restrictions without being opensource etc. But either way this articles title was absolute shit.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yea. I can't see why people r defending copyrighted material so much here, especially considering that a majority of it is owned by large corporations. Fuck them. At least open sourced models trained on it would do us more good than than large corps hoarding art.

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most aren't pro copyright they're just anti LLM. AI has a problem with being too disruptive.

In a perfect world everyone would have universal basic income and would be excited about the amount of work that AI could potentially eliminate...but in our world it rightfully scares a lot of people about the prospect of losing their livelihood and other horrors as it gets better.

Copyright seems like one of the few potential solutions to hinder LLMs because it's big business vs up-and-coming technology.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If AI is really that disruptive (and I believe it will be) then shouldn’t we bend over backwards to make it happen? Because otherwise it’s our geopolitical rivals who will be in control of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

I can't have a chill movie night at home with friends without being able to pirate movies for free.

[–] nl4real@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Oh, do you support copyright abolition, then?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that "downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training" should be treated differently from "downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder", but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it's a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can't copy it and share the copy with others.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›