Then let it be over then.
Good. I hope this is what happens.
- LLM algorithms can be maintained and sold to corpos to scrape their own data so they can use them for in house tools, or re-sell them to their own clients.
- Open Source LLMs can be made available for end users to do the same with their own data, or scrape whats available in the public domain for whatever they want so long as they don’t re-sell
- Altman can go fuck himself
This is basically a veiled admission that OpenAI are falling behind in the very arms race they started. Good, fuck Altman. We need less ultra-corpo tech bro bullshit in prevailing technology.
At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don’t care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.
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.
Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.
Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it’s nothing new that its “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Let’s say I write a book.
If I don’t want people copying it, people shouldn’t be copying it. I don’t care if it’s been 500 years. It’s my book.
This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.
Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can’t protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn’t want it stolen, I don’t give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else’s creation without consent. It isn’t holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.
when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.
I find it odd that Lemmy users are so adverse to tech.
People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn’t apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.
In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.
The issue isn’t with AI, it’s with how companies position it. When they claim it’ll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.
It also doesn’t help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.
If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn’t be so cold. But then there wouldn’t be hype and AI wouldn’t be actively shoved into everything.
I disagree with your take. I’ve found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it’s development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.
I don’t think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don’t think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don’t think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.
It’s fairly obvious what’s happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don’t understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn’t flourish. Rinse and repeat.
It’s not an opposition to tech. It’s an opposition to billionaires changing the rules whenever it benefits them, while the rest has to just sit with it.
The billionaires are the ones with the resources to develop this tech. We could nationalize it, but then people would complain about that too for different reasons.
The world doesn’t allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren’t adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.
It’s not tech for techs sake, and it’s not exploitation.
Technological advances are supposed to improve peoples lives. Allow them to work less and enjoy things more often.
It’s why we invented a wheel. It’s why we invented better weapons to hunt with.
“Tech for techs sake” is enjoying the technology and ignoring its impact on people’s lives.
When a society creates a massive sum of information accessible to all, trains new technology on data created by that society, and then a small subset of that society steals and uses that data to profit themselves and themselves alone; I don’t know what else you call that but exploitation.
Advances in AI should make our lives better. Not worse. Because of our economic model we have decided that technological advances no longer benefit everyone, but hurt a majority of the population for the profits of a few.
The AI is not the problem in this case. The economic model is. It is not an economic model suitable for the advancement of technology.
Yes. That’s my point. But people that hate AI hate it because of how it is being used under capitalism. For a lot of people “it is easier image the end of the world than the end of capitalism”. Hence why they hate AI. They don’t hate it inherently.
Yeah it’s crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It’s basically a cult
I am opposed to shitty tech.
It’s not shitty tech.
It is the shittiest tech. If you think this bullshit will actually lead to AGI, something that wouldn’t be shit, you don’t know much about LLMs or are incredibly delusional.
LLMs are an implementation on the way to AGI.
Sorry to say, but he’s right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.
And as the rest of the conversation points out, if it’s so important that for profit corporations can ignore copyright law, there is no justifying reason for the same laws to apply to any other content creators or consumers. Corporations are the reason copyright law is so draconic and stiffles innovation on established ideas, so to unironically say it makes their business model unsustainable is just rich.
Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.
The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.
The future comes whether you want it to or not.
They don’t want to change the law, they just want an exemption for themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.
I think the exemption would be necessary to keep up with other nations who aren’t and will never be beholden to such laws.
For a lot of things to truly flourish, copyright law has to be appended. But the exception is made specifically for AI because that’s the thing billionaires can afford to develop while the rest cannot. This is a serious driver for inequality, and it is not normal some people can twist the law as they see fit.
I understand your frustration, but it’s a necessary thing we must do. Because if it’s not us, well then it will be someone else and that could literally be devastating.
Then it’s a good thing they won’t get it.
I don’t think you’ve thought that out to its logical conclusion.
I don’t want AI to flourish.
Why?
Because of the environmental cost and climate change
Because of the jobs being destroyed by productivity gains
Because of the Internet starting to fill up with slop that drowns out the really relevant sites
Do you realize these companies are now making bigger investments into green energy?
This was always going to happen with the advancement of technology. It’s inevitable so long as humanity survives long enough.
Like what?
To fight climate change, we need investment in green energy. That doesn’t mean we need more and more data centers (there’s a surge since 2022) using an energy mix with a undetermined ratio of fossile energy and green energy.
Yeah, I know Shumpeter theory. It does not predict what happens when a new technology massively destroies white collar and creative jobs.
Like tons of bullshit IA generated websites when you look for information about a file format, or conversion tools for this file format
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I’d like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
I love your name
Thanks!
That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)
Not only that, but their business model doesn’t hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was “free”.
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
I also think it’s really rich that at the same time they’re whining about copyright they’re trying to go private. I feel like the ‘Open’ part of OpenAI is the only thing that could possibly begin to offset their rampant theft and even then they’re not nearly open enough.
They are not releasing anything of value in open source recently.
Sam altman said they were on the wrong side of history about this when deepseek released.
They are not open anymore I want that to be clear. They decided to stop releasing open source because 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.
So yeah I can have huge fines for downloading copyrighted material where I live, and they get to make money out of that same material without even releasing anything open source? Fuck no.
If everyone can ‘train’ themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.‘’
Otherwise, get fucked.
Then die. I don’t know what else to tell you.
If your business model is predicated on breaking the law then you don’t deserve to exist.
You can’t send people to prison for 5 years and charge them $100,000 for downloading a movie and then turn around and let big business do it for free because they need to “train their AI model” and call one of thief but not the other…
But I can’t pirate copyrighted materials to “train” my own real intelligence.
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
Man, what if we abolished copyright, but also banned gen AI completely. I think that would be the funniest answer.
you can, however, go to your local library and read any book ever written for free
Unless it’s deemed a “bad” one by your local klanned karenhood and removed from the library for being tOo WoKe
i almost wrote that caveat, but decided to leave it low hanging….
as far as i know, though, that only applies to children’s books at this point…
So can the AI
any book ever written
Damn! Which library are you going to?!
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…What if it’s out of print?
i am guilty of hyperbole… i should’ve qualified my infinitives with “just about” and such….
i am more sorry about my inaccuracy than anyone has ever felt sorry about anything
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.
Mine doesn’t…
are you sure? have you actually tried? or maybe ask a librarian?
most public libraries are part of a network of libraries… and a lot of their services aren’t immediately obvious….
also, all libraries have computers and free internet access…
i’d like to ask what library in particular, but you probably don’t want to dox yourself like that….
