OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
This post did not contain any content.
If giant megacorporations can benefit by ignoring copyright, us mortals should be able to as well.
Until then, you have the public domain to train on. If you don't want AI to talk like the 1920s, you shouldn't have extended copyright and robbed society of a robust public domain.
-
Yeah it's crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It's basically a cult
-
What do you think they are if not that?
They don't have emotions, they don't have individual motivations, and don't have intent.
-
If giant megacorporations can benefit by ignoring copyright, us mortals should be able to as well.
Until then, you have the public domain to train on. If you don't want AI to talk like the 1920s, you shouldn't have extended copyright and robbed society of a robust public domain.
Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.
Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."
-
Yeah it's crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It's basically a cult
lol, this is a human trait, not a Reddit/Twitter/Lemmy "thing".
-
The world doesn't allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren't adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.
-
my top 3:
#1 Elon Musk
#2 Mark Zuckerberg
#3 Jeff Bezos
Zuckerpunch
-
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
I love your name
-
In such a scenario, it will be worth it. Llm aren't databases that just hold copy pasted information. If we get to a point where it can spit out whole functional githubs replicating complex software, it will be able to do so with most software regardless of being trained on similar data or not.
All software will be a prompt away including the closed sourced ones. I don't think you can get more open source then that. But that's only if strident laws aren't put in place to ban open source ai models, since Google will put that one prompt behind a paychecks worth of money if they can.
I don't see how you can write the law such that it allows training ai on copyrighted data without making it possible to train a special llm on a single github instead of the entire universe, and essentially treat it as a full compression of the source.
-
Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.
Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."
I'd settle for shortening the term of copyright.
-
Is that so? I don't find it odd at all when the only thing LLMs are good at so far is losing people their jobs and lowering the quality of essentially everything they get shoved into.
-
I am opposed to shitty tech.
-
The world doesn't allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren't adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.
-
People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn't apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.
In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.
-
I agree with the other user that it sounds like user error. Or perhaps you've not really used them at all, and just have joined the AI hate bandwagon.
Cry about it. Crypto bros make the same excuses to this day prove your bullshit works before you start shoving it in my face. And yes, LLMs are really unhelpful. There's extremely little value you can get out of them (outside of generating text that looks like a human wrote it which is what they are designed to do) unless you are a proper moron.
-
Sorry to say, but he's right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.
And as the rest of the conversation points out, if it's so important that for profit corporations can ignore copyright law, there is no justifying reason for the same laws to apply to any other content creators or consumers. Corporations are the reason copyright law is so draconic and stiffles innovation on established ideas, so to unironically say it makes their business model unsustainable is just rich.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"
Depends on if you consider teaching "cheating." Current AI is just learning material, similar to a human but at much faster rates and with a larger brain. Someone IS going to develop this tech. If you pay attention to the space at all, you'd know how rapidly it is developing and how much the competition in the space is heating up internationally. The East tends to have much more of a feeling of responsibility to the state, so if the state uses "their stuff" to train this extraordinarily powerful technology then they are going to be ok with that because it enhances their state in the world. The West seems to have more of an issue with this, and if you force the West to pay billions or trillions of dollars for everything to teach this system, then it simply either won't get done or will get done at a pace that puts the West at a severe disadvantage.
In my view, knowledge belongs to everyone. But I also don't want people more closely aligned with my ideals to be hobbled in the area of building these ultimate knowledge databases and tools. It could even be a major national security threat to not let these technologies develop in the way they need to.
-
It's not an opposition to tech. It's an opposition to billionaires changing the rules whenever it benefits them, while the rest has to just sit with it.
-
Sorry to say, but he's right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.
For a lot of things to truly flourish, copyright law has to be appended. But the exception is made specifically for AI because that's the thing billionaires can afford to develop while the rest cannot. This is a serious driver for inequality, and it is not normal some people can twist the law as they see fit.
