this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
631 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4678 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 other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 26 points 56 minutes ago (1 children)

"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."

I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.

Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.

[–] jhdeval@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 23 points 56 minutes ago

So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 2 points 17 minutes ago

Only if you're doing it to learn, I guess

Wait until all those expensive scientific journals hear about this

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂

I'm going to have to remember this

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?

[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago)

God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?

Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.

[–] Jamdroid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

As far as the ai industry has already broken copyright laws. It will not be actually intelligent for a long time. Just like crypto this seems like a global scam that has squandered resources for a dream of a free workforce. Instead of working together to try and create an ai there are lots of technology companies doing the same ineffective bull 🤔

[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 3 points 24 minutes ago

Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 6 points 54 minutes ago

If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''

Otherwise, get fucked.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 hour ago

Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 minutes ago

Fair use doesn't mean shit if you're a pirate.

Arr, matey.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 59 minutes ago

Why does Sam keep threatening us with a good time?

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 13 minutes ago

If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.

[–] Horrabin@programming.dev 2 points 33 minutes ago

This sounds like socialism is good for capitalists

[–] sirber@lemmy.ca 2 points 34 minutes ago

AI always been about using stolen stuff

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 88 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Training that AI is absolutely fair use.

Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Agreed... although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren't licensed.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 minutes ago

Ultimatelly it's "Doing Research that advances knowledge for everybody" that should be allowed free use of copyrighted materials, whils activities for direct or indirect commercial gains (included Research whose results are Patented and then licensed for a fee) should not, IMHO.

[–] Jericho_One@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 95 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Fine by me. Can it be over today?

[–] kipo@lemm.ee 6 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

I'll get the champagne for us and tissues for Sam.

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 2 points 53 minutes ago

Unfortunately, the tissues have a 1000% tarrif. Perhaps sandpaper will do?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] febra@lemmy.world 23 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be "natural" intelligence.

Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kipo@lemm.ee 13 points 2 hours ago
[–] Konstant@lemmy.world 1 points 41 minutes ago

Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 42 minutes ago* (last edited 41 minutes ago)

Then perish, OpenAI. If your only innovation is a legal loophole then you did nothing.

My main takeaway is that some contrived notion of "national security" has now become an acceptable justification for business decisions in the US.

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (6 children)

I hope generative AI obliterates copyright. I hope that its destruction is so thorough that we either forget it ever existed or we talk about it in disgust as something that only existed in stupider times.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Thing is that copywrite did serve a purpose and was for like 20 years before disney got it extended to the nth degree. The idea was the authors had a chance to make money but were expected to be prolific enough to have more writings by the time 20 years was over. I would like to see with patents that once you get one you have a limited time to go to market. Maybe 10 years and if you product is ever not available for purchase (at a cost equivalent to the average cost accounted for inflation or something) you lose the patent so others can produce it. So like stop making an attachment for a product and now anyone can.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 42 minutes ago) (1 children)

The problem with these systems is that the more they are bureaucratized and legalized, the more publishing houses and attorney's offices will ultimately dictate the flow of lending and revenue. Ideally, copywrite is as straighforward as submitting a copy of your book to the Library of Congress and getting a big "Don't plagiarize this" stamp on it, such that works can't be lifted straight from one author by another. But because there's all sorts of shades of gray - were Dan Brown and JK Rowling ripping off the core conceits of their works, or were religious murder thrillers and YA wizard high school books simply done to death by the time they went mainstream? - a lot of what constitutes plagarism really boils down to whether or not you can afford extensive litigation.

And that's before you get into the industrialization of ghostwriters that end up supporting "prolific" writers like Danielle Steele or Brian Sanderson or R.L. Stein. There's no real legal protection for staff writers, editors, and the like. The closest we've got is the WGA, and that's more exclusive to Hollywood.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 43 minutes ago

yeah its the same with patent. I often think both should only be given to individuals and entities should not be able to have them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

So Deepmind is good to train on your models then right?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago

Oh, so now you're just going to surrender our precious natural resources to the Imperialist Chinese?!

Guys, I think we've got a Wumao over here. Someone get what's left of the FBI to arrest him and show his ass the fucking door.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 67 points 4 hours ago

Come on guys, his company is only worth $157 billion.

Of course he can't pay for content he needs for his automated bullshit machine. He's not made of money!

load more comments
view more: next ›