this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
982 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
68187 readers
3477 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So was it trained on his work without his approval?
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don't owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don't like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can't have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
Edit: yes yes. I know y'all don't like these facts and yet they're undisputed.
Who's watching marvel movies for free, legally? Who's listening to RHCP's entire discography for free, legally?
Not the people training AI, they've been caught pirating their data multiple times.
No one is. That's exactly the point.
Llms aren't recreating copyrighted works. They're drawing inspiration if you will. No copyright is being infringed.
And how is an LLM trained to "draw inspiration" from an author without reading their books?
That's exactly what it is. But it's not replicating the book to sell that same book to generate profit the author of the book won't get.
It's using the information in the book to generate its own data.
Are you aware of how llms work?
Ok, so if the LLM was trained by reading the books, then the LLM creators should have to buy a copy of the books, right?
Because right now the creators are pirating the books to feed into the machine.
If the people who make llms are illegally acquiring copywrited material without paying for it then the creators of the llms should be held accountable by the authority figures that govern such crimes and infringments. Absolutely. That was never in question or a relevant point in this discussion.
You're the one saying that copywrite shouldn't exist and you should be able to use all and any material you wish for any reason at any time.
Insane American copywrite laws not withstanding copywrite generally protects the creators of their work from others profiting off of it.
That is literally the point of this comment thread, go back and reread it.
Seems this is legal now. Keep this in mind, when the next video game decompilation project comes along because that's also machine-generated material based on copyrighted released media. That must be equally as legal now.
Everything was. Is ...
Hopefully. It makes cool pictures.
I said without, I wouldn't believe they got his approval...
Shouldn't't need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn't a public resource.
I don't care about copyrights. I care about content.
Every paid artist could disappear. Content will still be created. Probably better content and products then anything created under any copyright and IP as is now.
Better content?
Lol
Lmao even.
Absolutely. The Internet pre monetization was way better than anything today. It was funnier. It was more original. It lacked all the dumb attention whores today who only exist to profit like Andrew Tate, Rogan, H3, Jordan Peterson
I agree with this, but I don't think we'll ever be able to have that again. AI slop is drowning out all the genuine content regardless of monetization. What's the incentive to put hours of effort into something if nobody will ever see it because every hour another 1000 AI versions were generated and they're all "close enough" to fool someone not paying attention?
Well, that's one take I guess... Not a good one, but one none the less...
If we didn't have copyright then people wouldn't be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn't be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I'm writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
The irony of saying this on Lemmy. Lemmy is piece of software developed and distributed for free to people who host it for free. If somebody truly wants to make something they will create it even without profit incentive.
Scale Lemmy to the size of Reddit and we'll see if good Samaritans are still willing to host it for free.
That's not really relevant to the discussion. The number of users doesn't matter. The point is that people will still create things even if there's no money in doing it.
Jellyfin is another example of something I use every day that is completely developed for free. The is no difference whether 100 people or 100 million people use it. It exists because the people who built it want it to exist.
It is relevant, free development/services is nice and all, but when you're spending all your time doing it at some point you still need to eat and that requires money so what do you do? You either give up on the free stuff or reduce the amount of time you spend doing it so you can find a job meaning you lose practice and aren't at good at it.
I'm sorry to tell you but the people who are the best at what they do don't do it for free, the reason they're the best is that they can afford to do it full time because they make a living off it.
Most open source devs make good money as software engineers and devlop FOSS in their free time.
You are conflating having basic needs met with needing compensation. People dont need to be compensated finacially if their needs are already met.
So I think you really might mean "People with unmet needs can't work for free"
People aren't satisfied with only their basic needs met though.
You are literally typing on Lemmy. How much did you pay to use this? See any ads around?
Open souce devs would strongly disagree with this.
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict. I don't believe I'm endorsing someone stealing your work and profiting. I just believe that we all should have access to information to do what we want and build off it. Instead we have a world where Facebook trademarks the word face. Where the birthday song is owned by a company and can't be used in other content. Where we can't play mini games within load screens
I'm not standing in your path of success, fiscal reality is. If you want your utopia future by all means, but you need to actually come up with a solution.
Making naive comments online isn't a stance, it's just declaring to the world you don't know what you're talking about.
I know what I want. I don't have to care that you think you should stand in the way of people creating new things. If they're not copying your work then it's not a problem. If they buy your book and use it to train an AI that is ethically fine. I don't support the growth of intellectual property laws.
And I don't buy for a second that the world is a better place with artists all fighting to be the next best seller or financially stable painter. The world will turn people will create and I'll argue until I day I die that the best content ever is the stuff nobody is looking to profit from. That's the stuff that is actually created from a place that's pure creativity
It must be nice to go through the world and be so sure of something so utterly stupid. Who cares about reality, I have FEELINGS.
Seriously you've completely failed to listen to literally anything that I said. Give me an example of a novel that was Self-Published that is better than anything that was commercially available.
By definition anything that's good enough to make money makes money.
Give me anything published that actually matters in your day to day life. Give me any piece of created work that if it didn't exist, you just couldn't function.
What is your judgement of what is better or not. I'm trying you that in my life the stuff I've seen the random person create on their own often surpasses the person trying to pursue a career
Here
So the best books are the ones that never get published? The Best music is free on Soundcloud? The best movies are freely available on Peertube?
Your realize that in order to achieve greatness in a field it takes time, if artists can't live from their art because anyone is free to just make copy of it and to sell it and keep the profit to themselves then instead of making art they'll have to find another job instead.
You might believe that AI will replace them, but AI doesn't understand what it's doing it just regurgitates stuff until the person asking for it finds it good enough. It lacks the will to generate emotions in the viewer or listener.
Yea, I believe those are the best.
Bull fucking shit, you know as well as I do that your point doesn't make sense.
My point makes sense. What doesn't make sense
"The best art is the one created by people who get no recognition for it"
Do you also believe the best houses are built by people who have no training in how to build them?
"Stop paying artists and people will keep creating"
They will, they won't be able to spend the time required to become masters at it unless they're already rich enough not to have to spend time working. It's also the same thing here, let's stop paying plumbers, people who like doing plumbing will just continue doing it. Let's stop paying garbage people, someone will keep doing it because they like it... Oh wait, no they won't.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
People deserve a form of compensation for their work if we want to live in functioning societies. If we go back to living in small tribes then sure, people will just do what they must without compensation because it's required to survive, but then human population would be in the millions instead of billions and we wouldn't be here to talk about it because the technology wouldn't exist anymore.
They are compensated. But they shouldn't be compensated if their work is used to train AI.
And that's the problem right there
AI is being used as a stand-in to bring in new laws and shape the current mindset. One that keeps everything for sale and builds artificial scarcity. They went after starving artists and creators first. Same tactics that were used to turn people on the right against immigrants. Fear, anger, repetition.
Go look at the old posts and articles. Then compare them to the stuff that was circulating during the anti-immigrant wave. It’s the same blueprint. The media was used the same way. Make people think there’s a crisis. Then give them something to hate.
AI isn’t the problem.
You'll keep saying that until you end up jobless because a computer can accomplish your tasks in a good enough way, not as well as you, just well enough, then because it suddenly affects you you'll be angry about it.
It does affect my job. And no I won't end up jobless. My job will change and I'll adapt. I'll be able to do more at my job with AI and then expand on the work it does. It's symbiotic not parasitic
Again, until your boss feels he doesn't need you and can just rely on good enough shit regurgitated by AI.
Again like I said earlier 'they'll take yer jobs' is more about spreading fear and panic. The panic is never truly justified.
The Jobs will change. Bosses will always try to get rid of employees in favour of profits. Immigrants, sorry I mean AI is not a big threat.
People always ask why trumpets are the way they are. Look at yourself and the fear of this new thing and truly evaluate all the social media headlines and posts and comments it took to bring you here. It's the same process. Same shit different day. The media pushed this fear. That's how insidious they are.
Dude, you're the one saying it's ok to replace paid artists with AI, you're the one saying it's able to do their job, you're the one saying that it can take people's job, you just don't feel concerned because you can't imagine you'll be the one being affected, you're the one sounding like a Trumpist "It's ok, it will only affect others and they're the people who I believe done deserve to make a living off their work!"
I'm done, this is idiotic.
I never said to replace them. I just don't care if they make a living if they don't care about ending information scarcity