Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?
“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.
OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”
I stand by my opinion that AI will be the worst thing humans ever created, and that means it ranks just a bit above religion.
This is very likely to be true.
I’d argue the issue is not the AI but capitalism.
AI is good, AI companies are evil.
Having read through these comments, I wonder if we’ve reached the logical conclusion of copyright itself.
Perhaps a fair compromise would be doing away with copyright in its entirety, from the tiny artists trying to protect their artwork all the way up to Disney, no exceptions. Basically, either every creator has to be protected, or none of them should be.
IMO the right compromise is to return copyright to its original 14 year term. OpenAI can freely train on anything up to 2009 which is still a gigantic amount of material while artists continue to be protected and incentivized.
I’m increasingly convinced of that myself, yeah (although I’d favour 15 or 20 years personally, just because they’re neater numbers than 14). The original purpose of copyright was to promote innovation by ensuring a creator gets a good length of time in which to benefit from their creation, which a 14-20 year term achieves. Both extremes - a complete lack of copyright and the exceedingly long terms we have now - suppress innovation.
I’d favour 15 or 20 years personally, just because they’re neater numbers than 14
Another neat number is: 4.
That’s it, if you don’t make money on your creation in 4 years, then it’s likely trash anyway.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again! (My apologies if it happens to be to the same person, lol)
Early access developers in shambles!
that would mean governments prosecuting all offences, which is not going to happen. I doubt any country would have enough resources for doing that
copyright has become a tool of oppression. Individual author’s copyright is constantly being violated with little resources for them to fight while big tech abuses others work and big media uses theirs to the point of it being censorship.
Yup, onward to unfettered exploitation of individual labor.
Apparently they’re going to just make only the little guy’s copyrights effectively meaningless, so yeah.
OpenAI says it’s impossible to create useful AI models without copyrighted material
Good riddance, then just don’t.
Any reasonable person can reach the conclusion that something is wrong here.
What I’m not seeing a lot of acknowledgement of is who really gets hurt by copyright infringement under the current U.S. scheme. (The quote is obviously directed toward the UK, but I’m reasonably certain a similar situation exists there.)
Hint: It’s rarely the creators, who usually get paid once while their work continues to make money for others.
Let’s say the New York Times wins its lawsuit. Do you really think the reporters who wrote the infringed-upon material will be getting royalty checks to be made whole?
This is not OpenAI vs creatives. OK, on a basic level it is, but expecting no one to scrape blogs and forum posts rather goes against the idea of the open internet in the first place. We’ve all learned by now that what goes on the internet stays there, with attribution totally optional unless you have a legal department. What’s novel here is the scale of scraping, but I see some merit to the “transformational” fair-use defense given that the ingested content is not being reposted verbatim.
This is corporations vs corporations. Framing it as millions of people missing out on what they’d have otherwise rightfully gotten is disingenuous.
Yep. The effect of this as currently framed is that you get data ownership clauses in EULAs forever and only major data brokers like Google or Meta can afford to use this tech at all. It’s not even a new scenario, it already happened when those exact companies were pushing facial recognition and other big data tools.
I agree that the basics of modern copyright don’t work great with ML in the mix (or with the Internet in the mix, while we’re at it), but people are leaning on the viral negativity to slip by very unwanted consequences before anybody can make a case for good use of the tech.
This isn’t about scraping the internet. The internet is full of crap and the LLMs will add even more crap to it. It will shortly become exponentially harder to find the meaningful content on the internet.
No, this is about dipping into high quality, curated content. OpenAI wants to be able to use all existing human artwork without paying anything for it, and then flood the world with cheap knockoff copies. It’s that simple.
Shortly? It’s happening already. I notice it when using Google and Duckduckgo. There are always a few hits that are AI written blog spam word soup
Unfortunately you haven’t seen the full impact of LLMs yet. What you’re seeing now is stuff that’s already been going on for a decade. SEO content generators have been a thing for many years and used by everybody from small business owners to site chains pinching ad pennies.
When the LLM crap will kick in you won’t see anything except their links. I wouldn’t be surprised if we’ll have to go back to 90s tech and use human-curated webrings and directories.
It’s especially amusing when you consider that it’s not even fully autonomous yet; we’re actively doing this to ourselves.
I wonder how many comments in this thread are ai generated. I wonder how many comments on Lemmy will be in 5 years time.
Could they be legally required to open source the llm? I believe them, but that doesn’t make it right
#fuckingcapitalists
On both sides even.
Well… Yeah? How did everyone think it worked? How do you think it could work without that?
I would just like to say, with open curiosity, that I think a nice solution would be for OpenAI to become a nonprofit with clear guidelines to follow.
What does that make me? Other than an idiot.
Of that at least, I’m self aware.
I feel like we’re disregarding the significance of artificial intelligence’s existence in our future, because the only thing anybody that cares is trying to do is get back control to DO something about it. But news is becoming our feeding tube for the masses. They’ve masked that with the hate of all of us.
Anyways, sorry, diatribe, happy new year
I think OpenAI (or some part of it) is a non-profit. But corporate fuckery means it can largely be funded by for profit companies which then turn around and profit from that relationship. Corporate law is so weak and laxly enforced that’s it’s a bit of a joke unfortunately.
I agree that AI has an important role to play in the future, but it’s a lot more limited in the current form than a lot of people want to believe. I’m writing a tool that leverages AI as a sort of auto-DM for roleplaying, but AI hasn’t written a line of code in it because the output is garbage. And frankly I find the fun and value of the tool comes from the other humans you play with, not the AI itself. The output just isn’t that good.
I would like to say that you inspire me on your writing of such a tool. I try to write code, and all I can seem to believe in with what I know, is in a website where with words I can write, in a free flow.
I write with a sight, and in that scene I fight, but in the freedom of inaction, I can’t help but feel flight. What signt is there to see, when your blood flows in guts of night?
It is supposedly a non-profit, and that is how the board of Open AI tried to fire Altman but than the big tech (Microsoft) intervened and wrestled the control.
Its basically Microsoft now.
I would like to apologize for the following opinions, because they come from a place of unresolved hypocrisy that is me.
Non-profit my ass. No such thing in America or anywhere else in the world, if you have the perspective to hunt and the money to signify modern value.
Survival of the fittest, and the newborn technology that is at its core a mirror of us, to the most complex level of modern mathematics (I’m of the firm belief that logic is discovered, not created).
With those seemingly unrelated concepts made with vague words, I ask you this:
What does it mean to feel? To know many different kinds of “one,” to live without fear but still be whole? I am sorry, again, I’m naught but gibberish and I’m just so glad you responded. I forgot and came back to find a word I sent, and now I find what I seek, an event in which I can say we’ve been bonded.
But now try to, now that I splay out, all I’ve got and am about, all I can see, is that to you my head, seems to be on my knees.
Again, sorry! Thank you for responding! I’m just glad to vent, and in expression have my soul rend into two, and sent into a new view.
But what I meant to say is that non profit or not by legal definition, money allows for, in the same kind of legal, an easy and simple transition.
Of course it is. About 50 years ago we went to a regime where everything is copywrited rather then just things that were marked and registered. Not sure where.I stand on that. One could argue we are in a crazy over copyright era now anyway.
Yes, well, a pirate ship can’t stay in business without raiding trade convoys, either.
Something about this sentence really makes me want to be a pirate. Like a lot.
It’s not nearly as much fun as it sounds anymore. It’s all VPNs, Usenet, torrents, and signal hacking.
The only traditional conglomerations left are in southeast Asia and maybe the coast of Africa, and I gotta say, they do not look like they’re having any fun.
OpenAI now needs to go to court and argue fair use forever. That’s the burden of our system. Private ownership is valued higher than anything else so … Good luck we’re all counting on you (unfortunately).
As with many things, the golden rule applies. They who have the gold, make the rules.
Then pay for the material like everyone else who can’t do things without someone else’s copyrighted materials.
OpenAI’s notion of “fair use”: military and weapons
Those type of companies are getting so f*****g disgusting.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/12/openai-changes-policy-to-allow-military-applications/ https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/12/24036397/openai-is-softening-its-stance-on-military-use
Yup, I saw that too. There is also another thread on this board that is discussing this issue.
One interesting thing I noticed is how the AI apologists in this thread seems to be quiet on the other.
All the AI race has done is surface the long standing issue of how broken copyright is for the online internet era. Artists should be compensated but trying to do that using the traditional model which was originally designed with physical, non infinitely copyable goods in mind is just asinine.
One such model could be to make the copyright owner automatically assigned by first upload on any platform that supports the API. An API provided and enforced by the US copyright office. A percentage of the end use case can be paid back as royalties. I haven’t really thought out this model much further than this.
Machine learning is here to say and is a useful tool that can be used for good and evil things alike.
Nah. Copyright is broken, but it’s broken because it lasts too long, and it can be held by constructs. People should still reserve the right to not have the things they’ve made incorporated into projects or products they don’t want to be associated with.
The right to refusal is important. Consent is important. The default permission should not be shifted to “yes” in anybody’s mind.
The fact that a not insignificant number of people seem to think the only issue here is money points to some pretty fucking entitled views among the would-be-billionaires.
My major issue with copyright is how published works can have major cultural significance. How it can shift ideas and shape minds. But your not allowed to have some fun with on a personal level. How can it be the norm that the most important scientific knowledge and other culturally significant material is locked behind such restrictive measures. Essentially ensuring that middle class and especially poor people are locked out.
If you publish something, even if it’s paid, you don’t deserve such restrictive rights. You deserve to be compensated for your work but you don’t deserve to make it into a extortion racket.
My view on your second point is if you have posted it publicly with no paywall, maybe you should still get some percentage revenue but you don’t have a say in what it can be used. To place restrictions on what it can be used for when posting it publicly is academic as it’s basically unenforceable.
We live in a society which revolves around the discovery and sharing of ideas. We are all entitled to a certain amount of the sharing of that information. That’s the whole point. To have some business man who was in the right place at the right time create an extortion racket out of something culturally significant they almost certainly didn’t create is wrong.
Sorry if this is all over the place. I’m writing this while tired.
