OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
This post did not contain any content.
Time to sail the high seas.
-
This post did not contain any content.
To be fair copyright is a disease. But then so is billionaires, capitalism, business, etc.
I mean, if there's a war, and you shoot somebody, does that make you bad?
Yes and no.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe as a consumer product but governments will still want it
-
This post did not contain any content.
I dont wanna be mean but I always thought this guy had a weird face
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think the answer is there just do what deepseek did.
-
Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.
I'm not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.
Copyright IS about protecting creators; we're just still letting corporations run the show.
Copyright IS about protecting creators
No, it isn't. The intent WAS to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
-
Let's say I write a book.
If I don't want people copying it, people shouldn't be copying it. I don't care if it's been 500 years. It's my book.
This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.
Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can't protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn't want it stolen, I don't give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else's creation without consent. It isn't holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.
when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi'd; no matter how long ago it came out.
First of all, copying or modifying somebody else's work without their permission isn't theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I'm using your car, you can't use it, because I'm doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.
Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can't afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they've been granted).
This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.
You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn't, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they're a liar. When you put somebody's work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.
when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.
You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can't own information, copying it is not stealing.
-
That's a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you're the arsehole.
I wonder if there's some validity to what OpenAI is saying though (but I certainly don't completely agree with them).
If the US makes it too costly to train AI models, then maybe China will relax any copyright laws so that Chinese AI models can be trained quickly and cheaply. This might result in China developing better AI models than the US.
Maybe the US should require AI companies to pay a large chunk of their profits to copyright holders. So copyright holders would be compensated, but an AI company would only have to pay if they generate profits.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable in this field will tell me I'm totally wrong.
-
Then I guess they can't use it... Unless the owner wants to cut them some kind of deal.
We'll see how it turns out, but yea they're in big trouble
-
Copyright IS about protecting creators
No, it isn't. The intent WAS to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.
Just because it's been corrupted doesn't mean the intent and purpose isn't still there.
It's absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you're stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.
-
I don't believe there's a future in AI at all.
-
If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.
Just because it's been corrupted doesn't mean the intent and purpose isn't still there.
It's absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you're stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.
removing copyright entirely would benefit society
I could be convinced of that.
I think extreme reform would be of more benefit. Copyright as-is is an active harm.
-
removing copyright entirely would benefit society
I could be convinced of that.
I think extreme reform would be of more benefit. Copyright as-is is an active harm.
You seem very convinced, considering the downvotes of discussion.
-
System shared this topic on
-
But a human can't look at a painting for a millisecond and spit out an exact replica in the next. A human can't listen to the collected works of a musical artist and instantly improvise infinite sound-a-like songs based on complex prompts. A human can't read every scientific article on the Internet in a few seconds and regurgitate any and every tiny trivial detail on demand in the literal blink of an eye. A human being has a soul. Most do anyway.
For the record, I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing others did because you don't seem to see how AI so obviously devalues the beautiful and brilliant efforts of the human spirit to build and sustain our cultures, our societies, our civilizations, our species, our very world. In the capitalist hellscape that we currently suffer in, that kind of devaluing ought to be criminal.
Not targetting you specifically, but I guess AI is going to be a hard subject in the future.
Think of it as an expert in all other areas and you spend a year teaching it to be a better expert and so on. It's just humanity's digital baby that we are teaching based on our current knowledge, technology, art, values, morals, etc. - and it's just much better than you or me at learning so it's becoming an expert in everything, thus as you expect from an expert it's able to draw, it's able to replicate style's of music, it's able to think through complex math/physics/chem/biology problems as a human expert might be able to. Yet it has fatal flaws that need fixing, thus needs better training methods and more time - they are saying 2029 for AGI which is the first step. At that point it won't be up to you or me to decide as it will be a new living form that we will have to acknowledge and let it decide for itself what it wants or doesn't want to do.
I guess my point is it seems like it's devaluing stuff, but is in fact elevating everything that we were, we are and will be - that's why I'm saying it should be owned by all of us, we should all get the benefits. If a painter wants to draw something, they can use AI to draw faster, with more variations at a speed impossible before, you can make new styles, you can make it use just your own style, you save time and can create more complex works because of that. Real world paintings made by humans the old school way will always have a place, my thoughts are that they will even gain an exclusive status and be worth even more with proof of creation.
Not saying things are not bad right now, but what if AI is the path forward, like technology always has been - what if it helps cure all diseases past and future, what if it figures out how to make us immortal, what if we can travel instantenously from 1 place in the universe to another, imagine the possibilities that it will open to us. I think it's inevitable really.
-
Not targetting you specifically, but I guess AI is going to be a hard subject in the future.
Think of it as an expert in all other areas and you spend a year teaching it to be a better expert and so on. It's just humanity's digital baby that we are teaching based on our current knowledge, technology, art, values, morals, etc. - and it's just much better than you or me at learning so it's becoming an expert in everything, thus as you expect from an expert it's able to draw, it's able to replicate style's of music, it's able to think through complex math/physics/chem/biology problems as a human expert might be able to. Yet it has fatal flaws that need fixing, thus needs better training methods and more time - they are saying 2029 for AGI which is the first step. At that point it won't be up to you or me to decide as it will be a new living form that we will have to acknowledge and let it decide for itself what it wants or doesn't want to do.
I guess my point is it seems like it's devaluing stuff, but is in fact elevating everything that we were, we are and will be - that's why I'm saying it should be owned by all of us, we should all get the benefits. If a painter wants to draw something, they can use AI to draw faster, with more variations at a speed impossible before, you can make new styles, you can make it use just your own style, you save time and can create more complex works because of that. Real world paintings made by humans the old school way will always have a place, my thoughts are that they will even gain an exclusive status and be worth even more with proof of creation.
Not saying things are not bad right now, but what if AI is the path forward, like technology always has been - what if it helps cure all diseases past and future, what if it figures out how to make us immortal, what if we can travel instantenously from 1 place in the universe to another, imagine the possibilities that it will open to us. I think it's inevitable really.
Fucking hellscape
-
lol, this is a human trait, not a Reddit/Twitter/Lemmy "thing".
Having used reddit for many years i find the hive mind here to be even more extreme, especially around certain topics (all FOSS is good, all other tech is bad, etc)
-
Having used reddit for many years i find the hive mind here to be even more extreme, especially around certain topics (all FOSS is good, all other tech is bad, etc)
Certain topics will surely be hotter among our niche demographic here, I'm sure. But the behavior is human at the root, surely. There's nowhere where I don't see this type of behavior if there are enough people to exhibit it.
-
System shared this topic on
