A group of authors filed a lawsuit against Meta, alleging the unlawful use of copyrighted material in developing its Llama 1 and Llama 2 large language models....
ITT: A hilarious combination of people who have no clue what copyright covers and people who think providing a tool that allows a user to generate potentially copy written material is a violation of the aforementioned.
Google literally does this in every image search, but go off I guess…
Yikes. We’re at a complicated crossroads where discussion around copyright is as important as ever. You’re against someone choosing a path that will empower a major corporation, so you want to… *checks notes* strengthen copyright law? You should work for Disney.
Copyright was meant to be for 30 years. It’s corporate greed that push that number up. Every version of consciousness requires the intake of ideas and transforming them. A higher quality and wider variety of ideas the better. I’m all for creators having time to profit from their works. But fighting for more restrictive copyright law is a fight against humanity and A.I… You’re going to lose that fight.
Thank you for your comment, I think there’s a meaningful discussion to be had here. US “law” is meant to legitimize the ruling class and serve to protect their interests. In this case, copyright law, meant to legitimize the control of US media corporations on intellectual property, is actually hindering their reach and access to materials that can train their AI models. In any case, this is going against the spirit of what the law is made for, which is to protect corporations.
Law isn’t made from a vacuum. Law is written by the ruling class passed and minted by the ruling class. I did not remember voting for any copyright law (the US is not a direct democracy), and therefore the law is imposed to us.
So, you are correct, we are at a crossroads. More specifically, corporations are. Will they lobby to be an exception to copyright laws so they can continue training on copyrighted data, or will they weaken copyright laws enough so that their actions will be deemed legal?
My take is that since their models are trained from copyrighted data made by the people, the access to their models and its predictions / inferences must also be made accessible to the people. Of course they will not do that, so they will fight the hardest to be able to train on the most amount of public data while giving the fruits of that data only to the paying customers. The classic “socialize the losses, privatize the gains” trick that capitalists use.
anyway fuck capitalism fuck AI fuck this rant I’m high af
Google does not just show a link. It scrapes the content of the page to build a search index, i.e. consomes the content. This happens without explicit permission and in the past, there were no opt-out ways. Then they use this knowledge to provide search go users and incorporate ads to make money without paying the original pages. Google also started to show you these handy answers by showing some text section scraped from the page.
Like, there certainly is a similarity. And there is the difference that Google mostly feeds users to the original webpage while GenAI can replace the content.
Even if this were not covered by copyright. Our copyright system is broken and laws can be changed. Especially if they don’t correspond to what the majority sees as moral.
I agree copyright is broken because it is a mechanic of capitalism which has been breaking for a while.
Once we learn to live without the notion that people need to “earn a living” and instead move to a system of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” without the money insensitive the true biggest reward anyone can receive for having an idea is seeing your brilliant idea being used by everyone for the improvement of everyone.
I don’t see that happening anytime soon, because it will be very hard to convince literally everyone to be ok with what they need and pass on what they want.
Definitely a valid point. My hope is agnostic aswell, future is everything but predictable.
I do think though that on the current trajectory of the 1% owning 99% of wealth before 2030 will force some kind of change in this matter seoon, for better or worse.
ITT: A hilarious combination of people who have no clue what copyright covers and people who think providing a tool that allows a user to generate potentially copy written material is a violation of the aforementioned.
Google literally does this in every image search, but go off I guess…
Removed by mod
what’s a troglodyte
By the artist Skrumpgoblin
thanks
i dont know but it sounds scathing
Literally means ‘cave dweller’
why do they do this
Yikes. We’re at a complicated crossroads where discussion around copyright is as important as ever. You’re against someone choosing a path that will empower a major corporation, so you want to… *checks notes* strengthen copyright law? You should work for Disney.
Copyright was meant to be for 30 years. It’s corporate greed that push that number up. Every version of consciousness requires the intake of ideas and transforming them. A higher quality and wider variety of ideas the better. I’m all for creators having time to profit from their works. But fighting for more restrictive copyright law is a fight against humanity and A.I… You’re going to lose that fight.
Thank you for your comment, I think there’s a meaningful discussion to be had here. US “law” is meant to legitimize the ruling class and serve to protect their interests. In this case, copyright law, meant to legitimize the control of US media corporations on intellectual property, is actually hindering their reach and access to materials that can train their AI models. In any case, this is going against the spirit of what the law is made for, which is to protect corporations.
Law isn’t made from a vacuum. Law is written by the ruling class passed and minted by the ruling class. I did not remember voting for any copyright law (the US is not a direct democracy), and therefore the law is imposed to us.
So, you are correct, we are at a crossroads. More specifically, corporations are. Will they lobby to be an exception to copyright laws so they can continue training on copyrighted data, or will they weaken copyright laws enough so that their actions will be deemed legal?
My take is that since their models are trained from copyrighted data made by the people, the access to their models and its predictions / inferences must also be made accessible to the people. Of course they will not do that, so they will fight the hardest to be able to train on the most amount of public data while giving the fruits of that data only to the paying customers. The classic “socialize the losses, privatize the gains” trick that capitalists use.
anyway fuck capitalism fuck AI fuck this rant I’m high af
Removed by mod
Google does not just show a link. It scrapes the content of the page to build a search index, i.e. consomes the content. This happens without explicit permission and in the past, there were no opt-out ways. Then they use this knowledge to provide search go users and incorporate ads to make money without paying the original pages. Google also started to show you these handy answers by showing some text section scraped from the page.
Like, there certainly is a similarity. And there is the difference that Google mostly feeds users to the original webpage while GenAI can replace the content.
You sound like fun.
Even if this were not covered by copyright. Our copyright system is broken and laws can be changed. Especially if they don’t correspond to what the majority sees as moral.
I agree copyright is broken because it is a mechanic of capitalism which has been breaking for a while.
Once we learn to live without the notion that people need to “earn a living” and instead move to a system of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” without the money insensitive the true biggest reward anyone can receive for having an idea is seeing your brilliant idea being used by everyone for the improvement of everyone.
I don’t see that happening anytime soon, because it will be very hard to convince literally everyone to be ok with what they need and pass on what they want.
Definitely a valid point. My hope is agnostic aswell, future is everything but predictable.
I do think though that on the current trajectory of the 1% owning 99% of wealth before 2030 will force some kind of change in this matter seoon, for better or worse.