this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
233 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
476 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
233
OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)
submitted 10 months ago by sculd@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Apparently, stealing other people's work to create product for money is now "fair use" as according to OpenAI because they are "innovating" (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit "misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Money is not always the issue. FOSS software for example. Who wants their FOSS software gobbled up by a commercial AI regardless. So there are a variety of issues.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don’t care if any of my FOSS software is gobbled up by a commercial AI. Someone reading my code isn’t a problem to me. If it were, I wouldn’t publish it openly.

[–] sub_@beehaw.org 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I do, especially when someone's profiting from it, while my license is strictly for non commercial.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Same. I didn't write it for them. I wrote it for folks who don't necessarily have a lot of money but want something useful.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, for $20/mo I get a super-educated virtual assistant/tutor. It’s pretty awesome.

I’d say that’s some good value for people without much money. All of my open source libs are published under the MIT license if I recall correctly. I’ve made so much money using open source software, I don’t mind giving back, even to people who are going to make money with my code.

It makes me feel good to think my code could be involved in money changing hands. It’s evidence to me that I built something valuable.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

$20/mo

good value for people without much money

The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.

AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won't be able to benefit from it.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And yet it is orders of magnitude less than it cost a year ago to hire someone to do research, write reports, and tutor me in any subject I want.

If an artist can’t afford $20/mo they need a job to support that hobby.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It's not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.

I also think this attitude ("just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work") shows an overall lack of respect for artists.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Reverse engineering isn't stealing.