• CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Business that stole everyone’s information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.

    Yeah I’ll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared… Wankers.

  • Liquidthex@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It’s so wild how laws just have no idea what to do with you if you just add one layer of proxy. “Nooo I’m not stealing and plagerizing, it’s the AI doing it!”

  • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    National security my ass. More like his time span to show more dumb “achievements” while getting richer depends on it and nothing else

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If I’m using “AI” to generate subtitles for the “community” is ok if i have a large “datastore” of “licensable media” stored locally to work off of right?

  • patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t think they’re wrong in saying that if they aren’t allowed to train on copyrighted works then they will fall behind. Maybe I missed it in the article, but Japan for example has that exact law (use of copyright to train generative AI is allowed).

    Personally I think we need to give them somewhat of an out by letting them do it but then taxing the fuck out of the resulting product. “You can use copyrighted works for training but then 50% of your profits are taxed”. Basically a recognition that the sum of all copyrighted works is a societal good and not just an individual copyright holders.

    https://jackson.dev/post/generative-ai-and-copyright/

  • psyspoop@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    But I can’t pirate copyrighted materials to “train” my own real intelligence.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can’t have both.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I’d obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I’d like to see compulsory licensing applied to all copyrighted work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can’t stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it’s in the public domain.)

    • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there’s hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Hard to compete with the megacorp that publishes all books on a 5 year delay and rebrands it as their own, because there’s no rules with public domain.

    • Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I’m in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

      • monotremata@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span–it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we’d be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.

        5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it’s just you won’t have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.

        • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

          The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

          Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.

          It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

          Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.

          • CodexArcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don’t force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?

            Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I’m sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.

          • bss03@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

            If you actually believe this is still true, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya’.

            This hasn’t been true since the '70s, at the latest.

        • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          how about: tiered copy rights?
          after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?

          it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.

              Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn’t just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 hour ago

                I suppose it would encourage George Martin to get a move on. Otherwise you could set stories in his universe before he finished writing the third book. I still think 5 years is too short though.

  • Jamdroid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours 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 🤔

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

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

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Organized crime exists to make money; the way OpenAI is burning through it, they’re more Disorganized Crime

  • Daelsky@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

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