National security hinges on unfettered access to AI training data, OpenAI says.
  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.comEnglish
    4546·
    6 months ago

    That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)

  • efrique@lemm.eeEnglish
    2231·
    6 months ago

    I’m fine with this. “We can’t succeed without breaking the law” isn’t much of an argument.

    Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.

    But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you’ve downloaded on your PC that you didn’t pay for - tell them it’s for “research and training purposes”, just like AI uses stuff it didn’t pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.

    It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.

    Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they’re fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you’ve been stealing.

    Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo

  • psyspoop@lemm.eeEnglish
    154·
    6 months ago

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

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      113·
      6 months ago

      Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It’s a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws. We should be able too. But that isn’t where our discussions were steered was it

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        151·
        6 months ago

        It’s copyright, not copywrite—you know, the right to copy. Copywriting is what ad people do. And what does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act?

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          We don’t make laws. They do and they won’t abolish something that’s set up for them. But we have a choice to listen for now. What if we do whatever we wanted and we didn’t make it easy for them to enforce rules that don’t benefit us. I remember underground comics back in the day that said fuck Disney and drew Mickey smoking crack because fuck Disney. I remember downloading some of the best music on Napster because it was not really protected songs yet that some kid remixes into a whole new song. Like Slipknot and Britney Spears.

    • Bruncvik@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      6 months ago

      That’s because the elites don’t want you to think for yourself, and instead are designing tools that will tell you what to think.

      • lordkuri@lemmy.worldEnglish
        30·
        6 months ago

        Unless it’s deemed a “bad” one by your local klanned karenhood and removed from the library for being tOo WoKe

          • psyspoop@lemm.eeEnglish
            4·
            6 months ago

            Interlibrary Loan isn’t available everywhere (at least back when I used to work at a library ~10 years ago it wasn’t). If it is, it often has an associated fee (usually at least shipping fees, sometimes an additional service fee). I think the common exception to that is public university libraries.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                3·
                6 months ago

                My city library will pull from nearby libraries for a fee (like $2/work I think?), or I can use my card at those same libraries for free (just need to return to the same library), but AFAIK they don’t pull from anything beyond that. We’re a relatively small city (like 30-40k people), so maybe things are different downtown.

                University libraries, however, will pull from pretty much everywhere, and they have access to a ton of online academic resources.

  • Geodad@lemm.eeEnglish
    1251·
    6 months ago

    I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    1092·
    6 months ago

    Training that AI is absolutely fair use.

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

    • deltapi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      162·
      6 months ago

      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.comEnglish
        71·
        6 months 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.

  • rageagainstmachines@lemmy.worldEnglish
    105·
    6 months ago

    “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.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
    922·
    6 months ago

    That sounds like a you problem.

    “Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overtly unethical”, great pitch guys.

    I mean that’s like arguing “our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you’ll destroy our nation!”

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    816·
    6 months ago

    Good if AI fails because it can’t abuse copyright. Fuck AI.

    *except the stuff used for science that isn’t trained on copyrighted scraped data, that use is fine

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    762·
    6 months 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!

  • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8513·
    6 months ago

    Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.

    The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.

    Here in the Netherlands, we know that it’s true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren’t respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.

    And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.

    A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.

    The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    60·
    6 months ago

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

  • RejZoR@lemmy.mlEnglish
    564·
    6 months ago

    That’s like calling stealing from shops essential for my existence and it would be “over” for me if they stop me. The shit these clowns say is just astounding. It’s like they have no morals and no self awareness and awareness for people around them.