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

Technology

60585 readers
3705 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 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I feel we need a term for "copyright bros".

The more important point is that social media companies can claim to OWN all the content needed to train AI. Same for image sites. That means they get to own the AI models. That means the models will never be free. Which means they control the "means of generation". That means that forever and ever and ever most human labour will be worth nothing while we can't even legally use this power. Double fucked.

YOU the user/product will not gain anything with this copyright strongmanning.

And to the argument itself: Just because AI is better at learning from existing works, faster, more complete, better memory, doesn't meant that it's fundamentally different than humans learning from artwork. Almost EVERY artist arguing for this is stealing themselves since they learned and was inspired by existing works.

But I guess the worst possible outcome is inevitable now.

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

Your second to last paragraph nailed it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

So... they are a non-profit (as they initially were) or a public research lab then. That would perfectly fine to say the path that they chose and so happen to make them unbelievably rich, is not viable.

They don't have a business if they can't legally make profit, it's not that hard. I'm sure people who are pursing superhuman intelligence can figure out that much, if not they can ask their "AI" some help to understand.

What a joke.

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

It is impossible for my turnip soup business to make money if you enforce laws that make it illegal for me to steal turnips.

Paying for turnips is not realistic.

You bureaucrats don't understand food.

@davey_cakes@mastodon.ie

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

More like I can't sell photographs of turnips if I have to pay to take photos of them. Why should we have to pay to take photos of turnips when we never have had to ever?

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Not at all. They are using copyrighted material to make a product that they are selling and profiting from. Profiting off of someone else's work is not the same as making a copy of it for personal use.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Going to a museum and looking at paintings is stealing now according to you ppl...lol

Oh so it's different if it's a program doing it? Please...lol

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The difference being that the owners of the works in museums have given permission to view the content, and the people viewing the content are rarely trying to resell what they are seeing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

this is probably true

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I should just be allowed to take whatever I want from the shops because I don't have enough money to buy it!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It would economically detrimental to force you to pay for it. The entire system would suffer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I could make a lot of money too if I could use copyrighted shit for free.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bizza@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Copyright is a pain in the ass, but Sam Altman is a bigger pain in the ass. Send him to prison and let him rot. Then put his tears in a cup and I'll drink them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Ok... Is that supposed to be a good reason?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

If a company cannot do business without breaking the law it simply is a criminal organisation. RICO act, anyone?

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

If a company cannot do business without breaking the law

...then it doesn't deserve to be in business.

[–] theVerdantOrange@reddthat.com 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The law they're breaking is civil, so they can only get sued; this is basically Napster. Also this case is is Britain, so RICO doesn't apply.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Does anyone else hear that? Its the worlds smallest AI violin playing the saddest song composed by an AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You wouldn't download a collection of all the art and knowledge ever documented in the entire history of the known universe...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] noxy@yiffit.net 0 points 4 months ago

The gall of these motherfuckers is truly astonishing. To be either so incredibly out of touch, or so absolutely shameless, makes me wanna call up every single school bully I ever endured to get their very best bullying tips

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

I wish these people would just chill with the hypermonetization of literally goddamn everything

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

"Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens."

exactly which “needs” are they trying to meet?

[–] lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

shareholders' needs, like greater valuation

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Their internal monetary needs ofc!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

then perish

If I was exempt from copyright, I too could easily make oodles of money

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›