• glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    28 minutes ago

    The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.

  • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Business that stole everyone’s information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.

    Yeah I’ll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared… Wankers.

  • psyspoop@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    4 hours ago

    But I can’t pirate copyrighted materials to “train” my own real intelligence.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It’s a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws. We should be able too. But that isn’t where our discussions were steered was it

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It’s copyright, not copywrite—you know, the right to copy. Copywriting is what ad people do. And what does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act?

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      you can, however, go to your local library and read any book ever written for free

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can’t have both.

    • Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I’m in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

      • monotremata@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span–it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we’d be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.

        5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it’s just you won’t have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.

        • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          how about: tiered copy rights?
          after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?

          it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.

              Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn’t just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.

        • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

          The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

          Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.

          It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

          Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.

          • CodexArcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            34 minutes ago

            Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don’t force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?

            Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I’m sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.

          • bss03@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            58 minutes ago

            The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

            If you actually believe this is still true, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya’.

            This hasn’t been true since the '70s, at the latest.

    • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there’s hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          60 minutes ago

          Hard to compete with the megacorp that publishes all books on a 5 year delay and rebrands it as their own, because there’s no rules with public domain.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Thanks that’s very insightful and I’ll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.

    • helopigs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      the issue is that foreign companies aren’t subject to US copyright law, so if we hobble US AI companies, our country loses the AI war

      I get that AI seems unfair, but there isn’t really a way to prevent AI scraping (domestic and foreign) aside from removing all public content on the internet

  • Liquidthex@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s so wild how laws just have no idea what to do with you if you just add one layer of proxy. “Nooo I’m not stealing and plagerizing, it’s the AI doing it!”

  • rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    5 hours ago

    “We can’t succeed without breaking the law. We can’t succeed without operating unethically.”

    I’m so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it’s not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.

    Too many people think they’re superior. Which is ironic, because they’re also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn’t need all the unethical things that you’re asking for.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If I’m using “AI” to generate subtitles for the “community” is ok if i have a large “datastore” of “licensable media” stored locally to work off of right?

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    5 hours ago

    So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is “fair use”, or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?

    Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.

    • pogmommy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      But you have to pay humans, and give them bathroom breaks, and allow them time off work to spend with their loved ones. Where’s the profit in that? Surely it’s more clever and efficient to shovel time and money into replacing something that will never be able to practically develop beyond current human understanding. After all, we’re living in the golden age of humanity and history has ended! No new knowledge will ever be made so let’s just make machines that regurgitate our infallible and complete knowledge.

  • Daelsky@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean’s you’re just another Organised Crime group.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Organized crime exists to make money; the way OpenAI is burning through it, they’re more Disorganized Crime