• jdr8@lemmy.world
    19·
    2 days ago

    So what they doing is basically piracy.

    And not just them, any AI in that so called “race” is allegedly doing it.

    So why do we get punished if we download something from the Internet?

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    124·
    3 days ago

    I’m not pirating movies, I’m training my brain to imagine films and come up with new ones.

  • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
    412·
    2 days ago

    I don’t get how they’re allowed to do this in the first place.

    People are using LLM’s instead of visiting websites, reading books, or watching videos. And lots of people are PAYING AI companies for this.

    It’s such a clear case of copyright infringement, and it’s leading to countless losses for creators.

    • Bongles@lemmy.zip
      5·
      2 days ago

      I think part of the issue is it’s relatively new, new things don’t have laws written about them and haven’t been tried in court. So, until one of the copyright holders want to push the issue it’s sort of like “well, maybe it’s illegal, maybe it’s not.”

      And of course the copyright holders just make deals so that they get paid and they move on with life (Disney).

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      59·
      2 days ago

      No. It is not clear. I read books and train myself from them, and then teach others for money. That’s legal… Obviously computers are not humans, but the parallel is there. So it’s not clear what the law is or ought to be.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          2 days ago

          This seems like the key point. The teacher who buys a text book to share it’s contents with others is the intended use of the content. There’s clearly no theft there. If the creators of all this content had genuinely intended it to be used this way then there would be no problem. But the vast majority of artists/authors/creators seem to be against the use of their work like this (perhaps given appropriate compensation they could have been brought on side?)

          • banshee@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            This logic appeals to me but I’m curious how it could work legally as well as potential side effects. It seems likely that legal arguments would ensue over intended use of content, and it doesn’t seem like it should be illegal to use some created work in a new or unintended manner.

            I think the overall goals are to encourage creative and academic work (which requires funding creators), discourage centralization of knowledge (prevent leverage over and manipulation of populace), encourage distrust of llm output without source references in output, and discourage overuse of generative AI. I’m sure there are more, but that’s what comes to mind.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    2 days ago

    The entire spirit of Neoliberal Capitalism is that Regulations and Enforcement of Regulations are bad for business and shouldn’t be done.

    This guys’ take is pretty much just a continuation of the takes of lots of publicly celebrated CEOs of the last 4 decades.

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    592·
    3 days ago

    I hope that’s the face he makes when his head falls in a wicker basket one of these days.

  • laranis@lemmy.zip
    15·
    2 days ago

    I bet this fucker will beg for a ruling that his business model is illegal so that he has something to blame other than his own incompetent bullshit.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 days ago

      I bet he’s going to use the absolutely mind boggingly mentally challenged remarks he’s previously uttered as a legal defense for “people shouldn’t have given me all that money, that’s all on them”.

      Things like (paraphrasing, because I cannot be bothered to look up the clips of this imbecile): “We are out of electrons” as a response to “why not manufacture more hardware chips”. Or the hilarious “Once we have a working AGI, we’re going to ask it how to make a return on all these absurd investments”, to a group of investors…

      I feel like all the rich and powerful are the dumbest fuckers in this planet, who just grifted their way.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    23·
    3 days ago

    Same energy as a person I know who was complaining that their business can’t afford to expand if they have to offer healthcare plans to their employees.

  • bridgeburner@lemmy.world
    3·
    2 days ago

    Next thing those AI-companies are gonna do is to bribe the government into forcing regular companies to make their intranets accessible. Because those intranets are part of the deep web, and the deep web is much larger than the regular web. So a lot more training data is in them.

    • sus@programming.dev
      8·
      2 days ago

      I promise that if Sam Altman is sent to (above minimum-security) prison for piracy, I will not complain about copyright law a single time until the day he is released.

    • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      If the developers who made the work are not being compensated properly and the publishers are charging predatory rates, then pirate away.

      If the publishers themselves who have more than the means to actually pay the residuals for the work, are they themselves pirating, and then reselling the product? Up to you where your moral compass is on that.

      • nightlily@leminal.spaceEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        There are ways of donating directly to creators that aren’t just pirating their work, so hope we all advocate for that just as much. It’s Bandcamp Friday today by the way.