There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

HipsterTenZero ,
@HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone avatar

It’s impossible for me to make money without robbing a bank, please let me do that parliament it would be so funny

Bishma ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

We can’t make money paying for “AI”, going to theaters, or paying for streaming services.

So I guess everybody gets a piracy!

https://i.postimg.cc/fycVF0tQ/747b388abf806eace4febf55841285da.jpg

RangerJosie ,

Then go out of business.

Literally, “fuck you go die” situation.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@quokk.au avatar

Oh how quick people are to jump on the side of copyright and IP.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, a decision to modify copyright so that it affects training data as well would devastate open source models and set us back a bit.

There are many that want to push LLMs back, especially journalists, so seeing articles like this are to be expected.

edit: a word.

CaptainEffort ,

Exactly this. If you want ai to exclusively be controlled by massive companies like Meta and Google, this is how you do it. They’ll be the only ones that can afford to pay for public copywritten content.

tabular ,
@tabular@lemmy.world avatar

Copyright is the legal method to limit redistribution of easily copied material, not as if there’s anything else people could appeal to.

I ain’t a fan of copyright but make it last 10 years instead of X + infinity and maybe it’s not so bad. I can’t argue against copyright fully as I think copyleft is essential for software.

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

But those aren’t the options on the table right now. The options are “nullify copyright” or “keep infinite copyright”

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@lemmy.world avatar

Aww poor shit company and their poor money problems.

recursive_recursion ,
@recursive_recursion@programming.dev avatar

well fuck you Sam Altman

nick ,

“Too fucking bad”

Strawberry ,

If they win, we can just train a CNN on a single 4k hdr movie until it’s extremely fitted, and then it’s legal to redistribute

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

Y’all have the wrong take. Fuck copyright.

GiveMemes ,

Until the society we live under no longer reflects capitalist values, copyright is a good and necessary force. The day that that changes is when people may give credence to your view.

MoogleMaestro ,

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.

TheImpressiveX ,
@TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml avatar

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/9200ed3d-c6c1-4159-9647-6047461e51fd.png

reddit_sux ,

Even I should get a pass to view copyrighted movies and songs. I need it to train AI (Actual Intelligence).

aesthelete ,

I maintain my insistence that you owe me a business model!

ricecake ,

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that “downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training” should be treated differently from “downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder”, but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it’s a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can’t copy it and share the copy with others.

TotalCasual ,

No, they can make money without stealing. They just choose to steal and lie about it either way. It’s the worst kind of justification.

The investors are predominantly made up of the Rationalist Society. It doesn’t matter whether or not AI “makes money”. It matters that the development is steered as quickly as possible towards an end product of producing as much propaganda as possible.

The bottom line barely even matters in the bigger picture. If you’re paying someone to make propaganda, and the best way to do that is to steal from the masses, then they’ll do it regardless of whether or not the business model is “profitable” or not.

The lines drawn for AI are drawn by people who want to use it for misinformation and control. The justifications make it seem like the lines were drawn around a monetary system. No, that’s wrong.

Who cares about profitability when people are paying you under the table to run a mass crime ring.

masterspace ,

Copying information is not stealing.

TotalCasual ,

Depends on the context. Are you copying someone else’s identity in order to make a passable clone? Are you trying to sell that clone?

A duplication of someone’s voice, commercialized by an unauthorized source, is definitely a form of stealing.

Copying information illegally, such as private information held on a private device, is overwhelmingly illegal.

In general, copying information is only as legal as the purpose behind it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •