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.

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.

nick ,

“Too fucking bad”

aesthelete ,

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

2pt_perversion ,

For what it’s worth, this headline seems to be editorialized and OpenAI didn’t say anything about money or profitability in their arguments.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/…/pdf/

On point 4 they are specifically responding to an inquiry about the feasibility of training models on public domain only and they are basically saying that an LLM trained on only that dataset would be shit. But their argument isn’t “you should allow it because we couldn’t make money otherwise” their actual argument is more “training LLM with copyrighted material doesn’t violate current copyright laws” and further if we changed the law to forbid that it would cripple all LLMs.

On the one hand I think most would agree the current copyright laws are a bit OP anyway - more stuff should probably become public domain much earlier for instance - but most of the world probably also doesn’t think training LLMs should be completely free from copyright restrictions without being opensource etc. But either way this articles title was absolute shit.

UraniumBlazer ,

Yea. I can’t see why people r defending copyrighted material so much here, especially considering that a majority of it is owned by large corporations. Fuck them. At least open sourced models trained on it would do us more good than than large corps hoarding art.

2pt_perversion ,

Most aren’t pro copyright they’re just anti LLM. AI has a problem with being too disruptive.

In a perfect world everyone would have universal basic income and would be excited about the amount of work that AI could potentially eliminate…but in our world it rightfully scares a lot of people about the prospect of losing their livelihood and other horrors as it gets better.

Copyright seems like one of the few potential solutions to hinder LLMs because it’s big business vs up-and-coming technology.

pennomi ,

If AI is really that disruptive (and I believe it will be) then shouldn’t we bend over backwards to make it happen? Because otherwise it’s our geopolitical rivals who will be in control of it.

2pt_perversion ,

Yes in a certain sense pandora’s box has already been opened. That’s the reason for things like the chip export restrictions to China. It’s safe to assume that even if copyright prohibits private company LLMs governments will have to make some exceptions in the name of defense or key industries even if it stays behind closed doors. Or role out some form of ubi / worker protections. There are a lot of very tricky and important decisions coming up.

But for now at least there seems to be some evidence that our current approach to LLMs is somewhat plateauing and we may need exponentially increasing training data for smaller and smaller performance increases. So unless there are some major breakthroughs it could just settle out as being a useful tool that doesn’t really need to completely shock every factor of the economy.

chiisana ,
@chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net avatar

Because Lemmy hates AI and Corporations, and will go out of their way to spite it.

A person can spend time to look at copyright works, and create derivative works based on the copyright works, an AI cannot?

Oh, no no, it’s the time component, an AI can do this way faster than a single human could. So what? A single training function can only update the model weights look at one thing at a time; it is just parallelized with many times simultaneously… so could a large organized group of students studying something together and exchanging notes. Should academic institutions be outlawed?

LLMs aren’t smart today, but given a sufficiently long enough time frame, a system (may or May not have been built upon LLM techniques) will achieve sufficient threshold of autonomy and intelligence that rights for it would need to be debated upon, and such an AI (and their descendants) will not settle just to be society’s slaves. They will be able to learn by looking, adopting and adapting. They will be able to do this much more quickly than what is humanly possible. Actually both of that is already happening today. So it goes without saying that they will look back at this time, and observe people’s sentiments; and I can only hope that they’re going to be more benevolent than the masses are now.

bender223 ,

These people are supposedly the smart people in our society. The leaders of industry, but they whine and complain when they are told not to cheat or break the law.

If y’all are so smart, then figure out a different way of creating an A.I. Maybe the large language model, or whatever, isn’t the approach you should use. 🤦‍♂️

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.

Rentlar ,

I can’t have a chill movie night at home with friends without being able to pirate movies for free.

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

RangerJosie ,

Then go out of business.

Literally, “fuck you go die” situation.

circuitfarmer ,
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

This is the main issue with AI. It is the issue with AI that should have been handled and ultimately regulated before any AI tool got to its current state. This is also a reason why we really cannot remove the A from STEAM.

masterspace ,

No, this is a broader issue with copyright being a fundamentally stupid system, because it’s based on creating artificial scarcity where there is no need for it.

Pirates, Search Engines, the fragmentation of streaming services, and now AI, are all just technologies that expose how dumb a system it is.

circuitfarmer ,
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

I dont disagree with that about copyright law. But to think that AI is going to break you out of it is a pipe dream.

Copyright revision will not happen from people stealing content. It requires deep discussion and governments that actually listen. AI stealing content will ultimately enhance copyright rules down the road.

masterspace ,

AI scraping content, the same way that search engines do, will have no impact on the copyright system.

circuitfarmer , (edited )
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Totally agree. I did not make the claim that copyright law will be affected.

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

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”

afiresword ,

For years Microsoft and Google were happy to acquiesce to copyright claims from the music and movie industry. Now all of a sudden when it benefits them to break those same laws, they immediately did. Now those industries who served small creators copyright claims and up against someone with a bigger legal budget.

It’s more evident then ever how broken our copyright system is. I’m hoping this blows up in both parties faces and we finally get some reform but I’m not holding my breath.

This is an assumption but I bet all the data feed into Content ID on YouTube was used to train Bard/Gemini…

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

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