If your company can’t exist without breaking the law, then it shouldn’t exist.
Wow, that’s a shame. Anyway, take all his money and throw him in a ditch someplace.
Oh how quick people are to jump on the side of copyright and IP.
Yeah, a decision to modify copyright so that it affects training data as well would devastate open source models and set us back a bit.
There are many that want to push LLMs back, especially journalists, so seeing articles like this are to be expected.
edit: a word.
Exactly this. If you want ai to exclusively be controlled by massive companies like Meta and Google, this is how you do it. They’ll be the only ones that can afford to pay for public copywritten content.
Copyright is the legal method to limit redistribution of easily copied material, not as if there’s anything else people could appeal to.
I ain’t a fan of copyright but make it last 10 years instead of X + infinity and maybe it’s not so bad. I can’t argue against copyright fully as I think copyleft is essential for software.
But those aren’t the options on the table right now. The options are “nullify copyright” or “keep infinite copyright”
I activate false dichotomy and flip the table.
My goodness! This is unfair! What kind of Mickey Mouse rule is this anyway?!
“Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”
exactly which “needs” are they trying to meet?
Some idea for others: If OpenAI wins, then use this case when you get busted for sellling bootleg Blu-Rays (since DVDs are long obsolete) from your truck.
Maybe they should have considered that, before stealing data in the counts of billions
Google did it and everyone just accepted it. Oh maybe my website will get a few pennies in ad revenue if someone clicks the link that Google got by copying all my content. Meanwhile Google makes billions by taking those pennies in ad revenue from every single webpage on the entire Internet.
To be fair, it’s different when your product is useful or something people actually want, having said that, google doesn’t have much of that going for it in these days.
Wow, I just chatted with a coworker about AI, and I told them it was crazy how it uses copyrighted content to create something supposedly “new,” and they said “well how would we train the AI without it?” I don’t think we should sacrifice copyright laws and originality for the sake of improving profits as they tell us it’s only to “improve the experience.”
Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?
How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.
I think copyright has value, but I don’t think it has as much value as we’re giving it.
Does anyone else hear that? Its the worlds smallest AI violin playing the saddest song composed by an AI
Now now, I am sure what he meant was they can’t make enough profit to bring billions for its shareholders
I have this great business idea. I only need to be allowed to enslave people against their will to save on those pesky wages.
Y’all have the wrong take. Fuck copyright.
Until the society we live under no longer reflects capitalist values, copyright is a good and necessary force. The day that that changes is when people may give credence to your view.
Honestly, that sounds like a You problem, Sam.
He has committed the greatest crime imaginable! A crime against capitalism!
