OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
If your argument is that it depends on the quality of the output, then I definitely shouldn't be allowed to look at art or read books.
I didn't say anything about quality.
-
You misspelled capitalism.
Unregulated capitalism. That’s why people in dominant market positions want less regulation.
-
You forgot to link a legitimate source.
A lecture from a professional free software developer and activist whose focus is the legal history and relevance of copyright isn't a legitimate source? His website: https://questioncopyright.org/promise/index.html
The anti-intelectualism of the modern era baffles me.
Also, he's on the fediverse!
-
Slave owners might go broke after abolition?
I'm going to have to remember this
-
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
Agreed... although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren't licensed.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!
What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Why does Sam keep threatening us with a good time?
-
So Deepmind is good to train on your models then right?
Oh, so now you're just going to surrender our precious natural resources to the Imperialist Chinese?!
Guys, I think we've got a Wumao over here. Someone get what's left of the FBI to arrest him and show his ass the fucking door.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?
-
I'm not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.
Because once you can generate the GPL code from the lossy ai database trained on it the GPL protection is meaningless.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
I'll get the champagne for us and tissues for Sam.
-
A lecture from a professional free software developer and activist whose focus is the legal history and relevance of copyright isn't a legitimate source? His website: https://questioncopyright.org/promise/index.html
The anti-intelectualism of the modern era baffles me.
Also, he's on the fediverse!
YouTube is not a legitimate source. The prof is fine but video only links are for the semi literate. It is frankly rude to post a minor comment and expect people to endure a video when a decent reader can absorb the main points from text in 20 seconds.
-
Thing is that copywrite did serve a purpose and was for like 20 years before disney got it extended to the nth degree. The idea was the authors had a chance to make money but were expected to be prolific enough to have more writings by the time 20 years was over. I would like to see with patents that once you get one you have a limited time to go to market. Maybe 10 years and if you product is ever not available for purchase (at a cost equivalent to the average cost accounted for inflation or something) you lose the patent so others can produce it. So like stop making an attachment for a product and now anyone can.
The problem with these systems is that the more they are bureaucratized and legalized, the more publishing houses and attorney's offices will ultimately dictate the flow of lending and revenue. Ideally, copywrite is as straighforward as submitting a copy of your book to the Library of Congress and getting a big "Don't plagiarize this" stamp on it, such that works can't be lifted straight from one author by another. But because there's all sorts of shades of gray - were Dan Brown and JK Rowling ripping off the core conceits of their works, or were religious murder thrillers and YA wizard high school books simply done to death by the time they went mainstream? - a lot of what constitutes plagarism really boils down to whether or not you can afford extensive litigation.
And that's before you get into the industrialization of ghostwriters that end up supporting "prolific" writers like Danielle Steele or Brian Sanderson or R.L. Stein. There's no real legal protection for staff writers, editors, and the like. The closest we've got is the WGA, and that's more exclusive to Hollywood.
-
This post did not contain any content.
God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Then perish, OpenAI. If your only innovation is a legal loophole then you did nothing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".
-
This post did not contain any content.
