OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?
I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it's still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.
i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
but i mean, a lot of variations are possible…. -
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.
Well, except trademark and fraud. But there are plenty of workarounds to that.
-
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.
I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I'd obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I'd like to see compulsory licensing applied to all copyrighted work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can't stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it's in the public domain.)
-
are you sure? have you actually tried? or maybe ask a librarian?
most public libraries are part of a network of libraries… and a lot of their services aren’t immediately obvious….
also, all libraries have computers and free internet access…
i’d like to ask what library in particular, but you probably don’t want to dox yourself like that….My city library will pull from nearby libraries for a fee (like $2/work I think?), or I can use my card at those same libraries for free (just need to return to the same library), but AFAIK they don't pull from anything beyond that. We're a relatively small city (like 30-40k people), so maybe things are different downtown.
University libraries, however, will pull from pretty much everywhere, and they have access to a ton of online academic resources.
-
I hate zuckerburg as much as anyone, but I find his face surprisingly low on the punchability index. Musk and Bezos at 1 and 2 for me.
Zuck is, however, at the top of the list for lizard person index.
Bezos has such a shit-eating grin. Really makes him infinitely more punchable
-
Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.
these kinds of asshats are all the same. Only difference is the size of the hat.
-
Zuck is, however, at the top of the list for lizard person index.
Bezos has such a shit-eating grin. Really makes him infinitely more punchable
oh zuck is such a lizard-person.
Bezos' entire personality gets me fuming; I would want to punch him even if he weren't a billionaire. (Remember that time he talked over William Shatner touchdown?)
Musk honestly looks ok to me personally, I guess the gender-affirming surgeries went well. But the thought of what's going on behind his eyes makes me want to punch him in the face real bad.
-
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.
Truly open is the only way LLMs make sense.
They're using us and our content openly. The relationship should be reciprocal. Now, they need to somehow keep the servers running.
Perhaps a SETI like model?
-
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…What if it's out of print?
-
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
Man, what if we abolished copyright, but also banned gen AI completely. I think that would be the funniest answer.
-
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.
I suppose it would encourage George Martin to get a move on. Otherwise you could set stories in his universe before he finished writing the third book. I still think 5 years is too short though.
-
What if it's out of print?
i am guilty of hyperbole… i should’ve qualified my infinitives with “just about” and such….
i am more sorry about my inaccuracy than anyone has ever felt sorry about anything -
all billionaires do
Keep your filthy paws away from my boy George Lucas
-
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…Interlibrary Loan isn't available everywhere (at least back when I used to work at a library ~10 years ago it wasn't). If it is, it often has an associated fee (usually at least shipping fees, sometimes an additional service fee). I think the common exception to that is public university libraries.
-
Stripping away your carefully crafted wording, the differences fade away. "Hitting a randomizer" until usable ideas come out is an equally inaccurate description of either human creativity or AI. And again, the contention is that using AI violates copyright, not how it allegedly does that.
So the other thing with AI is the companies are not just making money on the output like an artist would. They are making bank on investors and stock market speculation that exists only because they scooped up massive amounts of copyrighted materials to create their output. It really isn't comparable to a single artist or even a collection of artists.
-
So the other thing with AI is the companies are not just making money on the output like an artist would. They are making bank on investors and stock market speculation that exists only because they scooped up massive amounts of copyrighted materials to create their output. It really isn't comparable to a single artist or even a collection of artists.
Again, AI doesn't do anything, any more than hammers and saws build houses. People use AI to do things. Anyway, profiting from investors and speculators without giving creators a piece of the action isn't a consequence of AI, it's how our whole system already works.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I am good with that.
-
But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.
That's because the elites don't want you to think for yourself, and instead are designing tools that will tell you what to think.
-
Truly open is the only way LLMs make sense.
They're using us and our content openly. The relationship should be reciprocal. Now, they need to somehow keep the servers running.
Perhaps a SETI like model?
I mean, make em non profit (or not for profit) and perfecly good with that. Also open source the model so I can run it on my own hardware if I want to.
-
Perhaps this is just a problem with the way the model works. Always requiring new data and unable to use current data, to ponder and expand upon while making new connections about ideas that influenced the author… LLM’s are a smoke and mirrors show, not a real intelligence.
They do seem fundamentally limited somehow. With all the bazillion watts they are cheap imitation at best compared to mere 20 Watts of human brain
