this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
1570 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Maybe they should have considered that, before stealing data in the counts of billions

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] raglan@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

oh no! We'll miss you, bye.

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If it can't figure out how to produce its own power, it's not doing anything but parasitism.

More Market control doesn't make us a healthier or better planet

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's parasitism if it's for their own benefit only.

Now, if openAI actually opened their AI (weights and models, not just access) then maybe the argument would be stronger.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 months ago

Fuck OpenAI. I hope they fail.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?

How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.

I think copyright has value, but I don't think it has as much value as we're giving it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 28 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I should just be allowed to take whatever I want from the shops because I don't have enough money to buy it!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 2 months ago

But I NEED to break the law.

Well, alright then. As long as it's for business.

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (7 children)

For what it's worth, this headline seems to be editorialized and OpenAI didn't say anything about money or profitability in their arguments.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/

On point 4 they are specifically responding to an inquiry about the feasibility of training models on public domain only and they are basically saying that an LLM trained on only that dataset would be shit. But their argument isn't "you should allow it because we couldn't make money otherwise" their actual argument is more "training LLM with copyrighted material doesn't violate current copyright laws" and further if we changed the law to forbid that it would cripple all LLMs.

On the one hand I think most would agree the current copyright laws are a bit OP anyway - more stuff should probably become public domain much earlier for instance - but most of the world probably also doesn't think training LLMs should be completely free from copyright restrictions without being opensource etc. But either way this articles title was absolute shit.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] maxinstuff@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

So…. not a legitimate business then.

[–] afiresword@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

For years Microsoft and Google were happy to acquiesce to copyright claims from the music and movie industry. Now all of a sudden when it benefits them to break those same laws, they immediately did. And now those industries who served small creators copyright claims are up against someone with a bigger legal budget.

It's more evident then ever how broken our copyright system is. I'm hoping this blows up in both parties faces and we finally get some reform but I'm not holding my breath.

This is an assumption but I bet all the data feed into Content ID on YouTube was used to train Bard/Gemini....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] portuga@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That’s rich. Does it apply to us common mortals? Or only billionaires?

load more comments (2 replies)

Sounds a lot like a “you” problem, OpenAI.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In a way this thread is heart-warming. There are so many different people here - liberals, socialists, anarchists, communists, progressives, ... - and yet they can all agree on 1 fundamental ethical principle: The absolute sanctity of intellectual property.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More of “you don’t get to profit off violating it and act like you’re better than a dude selling burned DVDs”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Depending on how important these large language models end up being to society, I'd rather everyone be able to freely use copyrighted works to train them, rather than reserve their use solely for the corporations rich enough to pay for the licensing or lucky enough to already have the rights to a trove of source material

OpenAI losing this battle is how we ensure that the only people that can legally train these things are the Microsofts, Googles, and the Adobes of the world so, bizarrely, as much as I think OpenAI has turned into greedy corpo scum, I feel compelled to side with them here

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

so this is just like napster except now I don't get to listen either ?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] headset@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

Sam Altman has the same creepy vibe as Elon Musk.

[–] BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 23 points 2 months ago

Sounds like the free market has spoken. Please die quickly, ""AI"" industry

[–] Someone8765210932@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I have this great business idea. I only need to be allowed to enslave people against their will to save on those pesky wages.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] casmael@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago

…………. Then the business is a failure and the company should go bankrupt

[–] Juice@midwest.social 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does anyone else hear that? Its the worlds smallest AI violin playing the saddest song composed by an AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 months ago

Well alright then, that means you have the wrong business model, sucks to be you, NEXT.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

I wish these people would just chill with the hypermonetization of literally goddamn everything

[–] filister@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Copyright regulations for thee but not for me

[–] nl4real@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Oh, do you support copyright abolition, then?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›