• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Come on guys, his company is only worth $157 billion.

    Of course he can’t pay for content he needs for his automated bullshit machine. He’s not made of money!

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be “natural” intelligence.

    Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.

  • Geodad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yeah, you can train your own neural network on pirated content, all right, but you better not enjoy that content at the same time or have any feelings while watching it, because that’s not covered by “training”.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Don’t worry: the law will be very carefully crafted so that it will be legal only if they do it, not us.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    That sounds like a you problem.

    “Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overly unethical”, great pitch guys.

    I mean that’s like arguing “our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you’ll destroy our nation!”

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sounds like another way of saying “there actually isn’t a profitable business in this.”

    But since we live in crazy world, once he gets his exemption to copyright laws for AI, someone needs to come up with a good self hosted AI toolset that makes it legal for the average person to pirate stuff at scale as well.

  • efrique@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I’m fine with this. “We can’t succeed without breaking the law” isn’t much of an argument.

    Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.

    But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you’ve downloaded on your PC that you didn’t pay for - tell them it’s for “research and training purposes”, just like AI uses stuff it didn’t pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.

    It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.

    Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they’re fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you’ve been stealing.

    Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I also think it’s really rich that at the same time they’re whining about copyright they’re trying to go private. I feel like the ‘Open’ part of OpenAI is the only thing that could possibly begin to offset their rampant theft and even then they’re not nearly open enough.

      • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        They are not releasing anything of value in open source recently.

        Sam altman said they were on the wrong side of history about this when deepseek released.

        They are not open anymore I want that to be clear. They decided to stop releasing open source because 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.

        So yeah I can have huge fines for downloading copyrighted material where I live, and they get to make money out of that same material without even releasing anything open source? Fuck no.

        • makyo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Absolutely agreed - and to make matters worse, their clearly stated goals ultimately amount to replacing all of us with their AI. This deal just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

  • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Look we may have driven Aaron Swartz to suicide for doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale, but dammit we are getting very rich of this. And, if we are getting rich, then it is okay to break the law while actively fucking over actually creative people. Trust us. We are tech bros and we know what is best for you is for us to become incredibly rich and out of touch. You need us.

    • AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      In case anyone is unfamiliar, Aaron Swartz downloaded a bunch of academic journals from JSTOR. This wasn’t for training AI, though. Swartz was an advocate for open access to scientific knowledge. Many papers are “open access” and yet are not readily available to the public.

      Much of what he downloaded was open-access, and he had legitimate access to the system via his university affiliation. The entire case was a sham. They charged him with wire fraud, unauthorized access to a computer system, breaking and entering, and a host of other trumped-up charges, because he…opened an unlocked closet door and used an ethernet jack from there. The fucking Secret Service was involved.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosecution

      The federal prosecution involved what was characterized by numerous critics (such as former Nixon White House counsel John Dean) as an “overcharging” 13-count indictment and “overzealous”, “Nixonian” prosecution for alleged computer crimes, brought by then U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz.

      Nothing Swartz did is anywhere close to the abuse by OpenAI, Meta, etc., who openly admit they pirated all their shit.

      • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        You’re correct that their piracy was on a much more egregious scale than what Aaron did, but they don’t openly admit to their piracy. Meta just argued that it isn’t piracy because they didn’t seed.

        Edit: to be clear. I don’t think that Aaron Swartz did anything wrong. Unlike the chatGPT, meta, etc.

  • graff@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If training an ai on copyrighted material is fair use, then piracy is archiving

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I need a seamstress AI to take over 10 million seamstress robots so I don’t have to pay 100million seamstresses for fruit of the loom underwear… Could you tech it how to do double well and then back up at each end with some zigzags? For free? I mean everyone knows zigzag!

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      And it’s not even a good search engine either. It just spits out sarcastic jokes from barely up voted reddit posts.