this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
995 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4462 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 408 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 89 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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".

[–] T156@lemmy.world 69 points 1 day ago (12 children)

There's also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn't be a business.

No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it's the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (15 children)

This particular vein of "pro-copyright" thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 53 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.

What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn't take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don't need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.

That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don't get to say no.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul.

https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf

This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I've been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] efrique@lemm.ee 201 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 day ago

🌏👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀🌌

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] psyspoop@lemm.ee 140 points 15 hours ago (20 children)

But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 115 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] meowgenau@programming.dev 39 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

In the end, we're just training some non-artifical intelligence.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 113 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (4 children)

Fine by me. Can it be over today?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 103 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Training that AI is absolutely fair use.

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 101 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

"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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 88 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

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!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 75 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 74 points 20 hours 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.com 71 points 1 day ago (14 children)

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.

[–] red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I totally agree. Patents and copyright have their place, but through greed they have been morphed into monstrous abominations that hold back society. I also think that if you build your business on crawled content, society has a right to the result to a fair price. If you cannot provide that without the company failing, then it deserves to fail because the business model obviously was built on exploitation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 58 points 17 hours 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.ml 52 points 1 day ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 48 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 44 points 16 hours ago (11 children)

Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.

[–] Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee 29 points 15 hours ago (13 children)

Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I'm in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Whoever brings Aaron Swartz back gets to violate all the copyright laws

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] shaquilleoatmeal@lemm.ee 38 points 6 hours ago

“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 37 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Why does Sam have such a punchable face?

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 28 points 12 hours ago (8 children)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 35 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

Look we may have driven Aaron Swartz to suicide for doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale, but dammit we are getting very rich of this. And, if we are getting rich, then it is okay to break the law while actively fucking over actually creative people. Trust us. We are tech bros and we know what is best for you is for us to become incredibly rich and out of touch. You need us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 35 points 5 hours ago

If I had to pay tuition for education (buying text books, pay for classes and stuff), then you have to pay me to train your stupid AI using my materials.

[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 34 points 16 hours ago

Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol

[–] Hawanja@lemmy.world 34 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 30 points 12 hours ago

over it is then. Buh bye!

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 29 points 13 hours ago

Business that stole everyone's information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.

Yeah I'll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared... Wankers.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 29 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be "natural" intelligence.

Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] __UnicornPower__@lemmy.ca 29 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 29 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Embargo@lemm.ee 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Oh no! How will I generate a picture of Sam Altman blowing himself now!?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 26 points 16 hours ago

Good.

Fuck Sam Altman's greed. Pay the fucking artists you're robbing.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 25 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 25 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Sounds like another way of saying "there actually isn't a profitable business in this."

But since we live in crazy world, once he gets his exemption to copyright laws for AI, someone needs to come up with a good self hosted AI toolset that makes it legal for the average person to pirate stuff at scale as well.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] graff@lemm.ee 24 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If training an ai on copyrighted material is fair use, then piracy is archiving

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 24 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 21 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?

Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›