OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
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
-
There's also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn't be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it's the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
Agribusiness in shambles after draining the water table (it is still free)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oops, oh well. I very much hope it's over, asshole.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
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
or it might be playing dumb...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Apparantly their trying to get Deepseek banned again, really doesn't like competition this guy.
-
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.
Open AI kind of is a nonprofit. It's a nonprofit entity owned by a for profit entity, which is fucky and defeats the purpose, but that's an argument you'll see people make.
-
I am good with that.
dont threaten me with a good time
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, actually they've just finally admitted that they can't improve them any further because there's not enough training data in existence to squeeze any more demonizing returns out of.
-
Entrenched companies often want more regulation to prevent startup competition. Pulling the ladder up behind them.
To be fair, they want more regulation n others, not on them. Specially if they’re doing shady things.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Over in the US, that's giving China the advantage in AI development. Won't happen.
-
This post did not contain any content.
“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is exactly what social media companies have been doing for a while (it’s free, yes) they use your data to train their algorithms to squeeze more money out of people. They get a tangible and monetary benefit from our collective data. These AI companies want to train their AI on our hard work and then get monetary benefit off of it. How is this not seen as theft or even if they are not doing it just yet…how is it not seen as an attempt at theft?
How come people (not the tech savvy) are unable to see how they are being exploited? These companies are not currently working towards any UBI bills or policies in governments that I am aware of. Since they want to take our work, and use it to get rich and their investors rich why do they think they are justified in using people’s work? It just seems so slime-y.
