• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4510 months ago

    If openai gets to use copyrighted content for free, then so should every one else.

    If that happens, no point making anything, since your stuff will get stolen anyway

  • magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    19810 months ago

    In every other circumstance I can think of, “I can’t make money doing a thing unless I break the law” means don’t do that thing.

    Why should AI get special treatment?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      410 months ago

      The more the original work is transformed, the more likely it is to be considered fair use rather than infringement.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1610 months ago

          Now about that fake money for criminals - it was quite useful for me when I needed to send money to my sister, with me being in Russia and her being outside, and it was year 2022. Also with the way ruble sank after the war, buying BTC hours after seeing news of it starting was probably a bargain. Would be twice as expensive the next day.

          I haven’t used Uber (Yandex Taxi) and Airbnb (asocial type and have responsibilities), and I agree about the plagiarism machine.

          • rautapekoni
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            So you didn’t do the crime, but your home country did, and you could use crypto to make life easier despite the repercussions. I’d say it’s not a bad fit.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              210 months ago

              Nah. Arbitrary shit that doesn’t hurt those who did the crime, but does hurt me, is not repercussions. Neither is it a crime to find tools to solve such problems.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            110 months ago

            Sorry to break it to you, but bypassing sections is a crime. You just proved his point. Sanctions are supposed to make life difficult for the people in sanctioned countries so that those people maybe start doing something to the person causing the problems.

            It may be useful, but it was designed to facilitate criminal payments.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              Sanctions are supposed to make life difficult for the people in sanctioned countries so that those people maybe start doing something to the person causing the problems.

              Nah. They are supposed to reduce connectivity for everyone except the right people with connections, who deal in shit big enough, like oil, gas etc, but not us serfs and not businessmen who don’t respect their government officials enough to bribe them. This worked especially well in the Iron Curtain times, and it seems there are people nostalgic of that now.

              First, spitting into my soup for something other people did is not going to make me more pissed at them (suppose I already was), it’s going to make me more pissed at those spitting into my soup.

              Second, knowing that Israel isn’t sanctioned, Turkey isn’t sanctioned, Azerbaijan isn’t sanctioned, but Russia is, not being better, makes it extremely hard to believe that those sanctions are meant to solve problems. Even if I didn’t know how they work.

              Third, a country can’t make something a crime outside their jurisdiction.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3010 months ago

        Ah yes, the original unviable silicon valley businesses! I love how they used their VC money to undercut and kill small businesses all over the world.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        AirBNB is currently failing. Uber likely will when people catch on to “dynamic pricing”

  • Bappity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5710 months ago

    “waaaaah please give us exemption so we can profit off of stolen works waaaaaaaahhhhhh”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    910 months ago

    If he wins this, I guess everyone should just make their Jellyfin servers public.

    Because if rich tech bros get to opt out of our copyright system, I don’t see why the hell normal people have to abide by it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    Yeah, but because our government views technological dominance as a National Security issue we can be sure that this will come to nothing bc China Bad™.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2010 months ago

    Well alright then, that means you have the wrong business model, sucks to be you, NEXT.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1310 months ago

    What irks me most about this claim from OpenAI and others in the AI industry is that it’s not based on any real evidence. Nobody has tested the counterfactual approach he claims wouldn’t work, yet the experiments that came closest–the first StarCoder LLM and the CommonCanvas text-to-image model–suggest that, in fact, it would have been possible to produce something very nearly as useful, and in some ways better, with a more restrained training data curation approach than scraping outbound Reddit links.

    All that aside, copyright clearly isn’t the right framework for understanding why what OpenAI does bothers people so much. It’s really about “data dignity”, which is a relatively new moral principle not yet protected by any single law. Most people feel that they should have control over what data is gathered about their activities online, as well as what is done with those data after it’s been collected, and even if they publish or post something under a Creative Commons license that permits derived uses of their work, they’ll still get upset if it’s used as an input to machine learning. This is true even if the generative models thereby created are not created for commercial reasons, but only for personal or educational purposes that clearly constitute fair use. I’m not saying that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted work is fair, I’m just saying that even in cases where the use is clearly fair, there’s still a perceived moral injury, so I don’t think it’s wise to lean too heavily on copyright law if we want to find a path forward that feels just.