OpenAI Furious DeepSeek Might Have Stolen All the Data OpenAI Stole From Us

[atrielienz@lemmy.world]

I didn't realize it was a book. Guess I'll be searching that out.

[awesomelowlander@sh.itjust.works]

There's plenty of honor in Deepseek releasing open source.

[awesomelowlander@sh.itjust.works]

I'm still not seeing the bad part.

[fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

... assuming deepseek is telling the truth, something they have plenty of incentives to lie about

[rooty@lemmy.world]

I love how die hard free market defenders turn into fuming protectionists the second their hegemony is threatened.

[mechoman444@lemmy.world]

I can't believe we're still on this nonsense about AI stealing data for training.

I've had this argument so many times before y'all need to figure out which data you want free and which data do you want to pay for because you can't have it both ways.

Either the data is free or it's paid for. For everyone including individuals and corporations.

You can't have data be free for some people and be paid for for others it doesn't work that way we don't have the infrastructure to support this kind of thing.

For example Wikipedia can't make its data available for AI training for a price and free for everyone else. You can just go to wikipedia.com and read all the data that you want. It's available for free there's no paywall there's no subscriptions no account to make no password to put in no username to think of.

Either all data is free or it's all paid for.

[lengawaits@lemmy.world]

I tend to think that information should be free, generally, so I would be fine with "OpenAI the non-profit" taking copyrighted data under fair-use, but I don't extend that thinking to "OpenAI the for-profit company".

[fallowseed@lemmy.world]

everyone concerned about their privacy going to china-- look at how easy it is to get it from the hands of our overlord spymasters who've already snatched it from us.

[omega_jimes@lemmy.ca]

I mean, sure, but the issue is that the rules aren't being applied on the same level. The data in question isn't free for you, it's not free for me, but it's free for OpenAI. They don't face any legal consequences, whereas humans in the USA are prosecuted including an average fine per human of $266,000 and an average prison sentence of 25 months.

OpenAI has pirated, violated copyright, and distributed more copyright than an i divided human is reasonably capable of, and faces no consequences.

https://www.splaw.us/blog/2021/02/looking-into-statistics-on-copyright-violations/

https://www.patronus.ai/blog/introducing-copyright-catcher

My use of the term "human" is awkward, but US law considers corporations people, so i tried to differentiate.

I'm in favour of free and open data, but I'm also of the opinion that the rules should apply to everyone.

[critical_thinker@lemm.ee]

It's a shame that you can't copyright the output of AI, isn't it?

[ziltoid1991@lemmy.world]

Intellectual property theft for me but not for thee!

[ziltoid1991@lemmy.world]

Trump executive order on the copyrightability of AI output in 3...

[whostosay@lemmy.world]

It just gets better and better y'all.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/30/deepseek_database_left_open/

[vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de]

so? it won't have any effect on china, because last i checked, us laws apply only in the us

[citizenkong@lemmy.world]

Tale as old as capitalism.

[riot@slrpnk.net]

Security? We don’t need no security!

[whostosay@lemmy.world]

You get a free database, and you get free database, and you get a free database! EVERYBODY GETS A FREE DATABASE

Oprahbees.gif

[lifter@discuss.tchncs.de]

Many licences have different rules for redistribution, which I think is fair. The site is free to use but it's not fair to copy all the data and make a competitive site.

Of course wikipedia could make such a license. I don't think they have though.

How is the lack of infrastructure an argument for allowing something morally incorrect? We can take that argument to absurdum by saying there are more people with guns than there are cops - therefore killing must be morally correct.

[privacydingus@lemmy.world]

[mechoman444@lemmy.world]

The core infrastructure issue is distinguishing between queries made by individuals and those made by programs scraping the internet for AI training data. The answer is that you can't. The way data is presented online makes such differentiation impossible.

Either all data must be placed behind a paywall, or none of it should be. Selective restriction is impractical. Copyright is not the central issue, as AI models do not claim ownership of the data they train on.

If information is freely accessible to everyone, then by definition, it is free to be viewed, queried, and utilized by any application. The copyrighted material used in AI training is not being stored verbatim—it is being learned.

In the same way, an artist drawing inspiration from Michelangelo or Raphael does not need to compensate their estates. They are not copying the work but rather learning from it and creating something new.