this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1003 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4484 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 31 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.

Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 48 minutes ago

I'd settle for shortening the term of copyright.

[–] SaraTonin@lemm.ee 1 points 26 minutes ago

Musk has an AI project. Techbros have deliberately been sucking up to Trump. I’m pretty sure AI training will be declared fair use and copyright laws will remain the same for everybody else.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

Let's say I write a book.

If I don't want people copying it, people shouldn't be copying it. I don't care if it's been 500 years. It's my book.

This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.

Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can't protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn't want it stolen, I don't give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else's creation without consent. It isn't holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.

when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi'd; no matter how long ago it came out.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 5 minutes ago

What is really novel in art is very hard to define. Art is based on artists inspiring each other, reacting to each other, borrowing from each other, evolving other artists's ideas, actualizing and restructuring ideas. That's why history of art is so fun and interesting.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 35 points 5 hours ago

If I had to pay tuition for education (buying text books, pay for classes and stuff), then you have to pay me to train your stupid AI using my materials.

[–] __UnicornPower__@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

I love your name

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 25 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 22 minutes ago

Depends on if you consider teaching "cheating." Current AI is just learning material, similar to a human but at much faster rates and with a larger brain. Someone IS going to develop this tech. If you pay attention to the space at all, you'd know how rapidly it is developing and how much the competition in the space is heating up internationally. The East tends to have much more of a feeling of responsibility to the state, so if the state uses "their stuff" to train this extraordinarily powerful technology then they are going to be ok with that because it absences their state in the world. The West seems to have more of an issue with this, and if you force the West to pay billions or trillions of dollars for everything to teach this system, then it simply either won't get done or will get done at a pace that puts the West at a severe disadvantage.

In my view, knowledge belongs to everyone. But I also don't want people more closely aligned with my ideals to be hobbled in the area of building these ultimate knowledge databases and tools. It could even be a major national security threat to not let these technologies develop in the way they need to.

[–] shaquilleoatmeal@lemm.ee 38 points 6 hours ago

“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 11 points 5 hours ago

Okay.

It was fun while it lasted.

For someone.

I presume.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 20 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man

[–] techclothes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It has some great upsides. But those upsides can be trained on specific information that they pay for instead of training AI on people's stuff who didn't consent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

Sorry to say, but he's right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 5 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

And as the rest of the conversation points out, if it's so important that for profit corporations can ignore copyright law, there is no justifying reason for the same laws to apply to any other content creators or consumers. Corporations are the reason copyright law is so draconic and stiffles innovation on established ideas, so to unironically say it makes their business model unsustainable is just rich.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.

The future comes whether you want it to or not.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

For a lot of things to truly flourish, copyright law has to be appended. But the exception is made specifically for AI because that's the thing billionaires can afford to develop while the rest cannot. This is a serious driver for inequality, and it is not normal some people can twist the law as they see fit.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

I understand your frustration, but it's a necessary thing we must do. Because if it's not us, well then it will be someone else and that could literally be devastating.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Then it's a good thing they won't get it.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago

I don't think you've thought that out to its logical conclusion.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

What a giant load of crap.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Oh no anyway.jpg

[–] SaladKing@lemm.ee 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

This is exactly what social media companies have been doing for a while (it’s free, yes) they use your data to train their algorithms to squeeze more money out of people. They get a tangible and monetary benefit from our collective data. These AI companies want to train their AI on our hard work and then get monetary benefit off of it. How is this not seen as theft or even if they are not doing it just yet…how is it not seen as an attempt at theft?

How come people (not the tech savvy) are unable to see how they are being exploited? These companies are not currently working towards any UBI bills or policies in governments that I am aware of. Since they want to take our work, and use it to get rich and their investors rich why do they think they are justified in using people’s work? It just seems so slime-y.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

They're actually not making money. They're losing money. Yes yes, I know they're raising billions of dollars, but that goes into the training of the these models which requires manpower and a massive amount of compute and energy. Yeah, they tend to charge to use it (but also offer free tiers) but this is to put back into training.

Here's the thing. The cat is out of the bag. It's coming one way or another, and it will either be by us, or it will be by not us.

I'd rather it be us. Id rather us not be so selfish and rather us be willing to contribute to this ultimate tool for the betterment of all.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Capital calls its own theft "innovation" and that of the individual "crime".

[–] magnus919@lemmy.brandyapple.com 4 points 5 hours ago

I'll take him seriously if & when OpenAI lives up to its name.

[–] Hawanja@lemmy.world 34 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›