• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    46 minutes ago

    I have conflicting feelings about this whole thing. If you are selling the result of training like OpenAI does (and every other company), then I feel like it’s absolutely and clearly not fair use. It’s just theft with extra steps.

    On the other hand, what about open source projects and individuals who aren’t selling or competing with the owners of the training material? I feel like that would be fair use.

    What keeps me up at night is if training is never fair use, then the natural result is that AI becomes monopolized by big companies with deep pockets who can pay for an infinite amount of random content licensing, and then we are all forever at their mercy for this entire branch of technology.

    The practical, socioeconomic, and ethical considerations are really complex, but all I ever see discussed are these hard-line binary stances that would only have awful corporate-empowering consequences, either because they can steal content freely or because they are the only ones that will have the resources to control the technology.

  • BostonSamurai@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Oh no, not the plagiarizing machine! How are rich hacks going to feign talent now? Pay an artist for it?! Crazy!

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF

  • Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 hours ago

    At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don’t care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    8 hours ago

    TLDR: “we should be able to steal other people’s work, or we’ll go crying to daddy Trump. But DeepSeek shouldn’t be able to steal from the stuff we stole, because China and open source”

  • azalty@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone

  • Daerun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Why training openai with literally millions of copyrighted works is fair use, but me downloading an episode of a series not available in any platform means years of prison?

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.