“Too fucking bad”

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that "downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training" should be treated differently from "downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder", but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it's a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can't copy it and share the copy with others.

Idk, usually people shut down their business if it can't make a profit...

I maintain my insistence that you owe me a business model!

If he wins this, I guess everyone should just make their Jellyfin servers public.

Because if rich tech bros get to opt out of our copyright system, I don't see why the hell normal people have to abide by it.

No, they can make money without stealing. They just choose to steal and lie about it either way. It's the worst kind of justification.

The investors are predominantly made up of the Rationalist Society. It doesn't matter whether or not AI "makes money". It matters that the development is steered as quickly as possible towards an end product of producing as much propaganda as possible.

The bottom line barely even matters in the bigger picture. If you're paying someone to make propaganda, and the best way to do that is to steal from the masses, then they'll do it regardless of whether or not the business model is "profitable" or not.

The lines drawn for AI are drawn by people who want to use it for misinformation and control. The justifications make it seem like the lines were drawn around a monetary system. No, that's wrong.

Who cares about profitability when people are paying you under the table to run a mass crime ring.

Ok... Is that supposed to be a good reason?

Sorry not sorry. Found another company that does not need to rob people and other companies to make money. Also: breaking the law should make this kind of people face grim consequences. But nothing will happen.

If they win, we can just train a CNN on a single 4k hdr movie until it's extremely fitted, and then it's legal to redistribute

Unregulated areas lead to these type of business practices where the people will squeeze out the juices of these opportunities. The cost of these activities will be passed on the taxpayers.

Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" are misunderstanding key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.

This process is more akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.

This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.

Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was found to be legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.

While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.

I do not care. Get a real job.

Right now, you can draw the line easily. There will come a time, not to far in the future where machines reading and summarizing copy written data will be the norm.

It's doesnt have to change yet, but eventually this will have to be properly handled.

We're all just horse owners bitching about how cars will just have to be stopped.

Criminals Plead That They Can't Make Money Without Stealing Materials for Free.

Perhaps they should go back to what they were before the greed machine was spun up.

Hello from our companies "we finally need to get more AI" executive conference. I got find a way to get out of this corporate bullshit...

"We are falling behind" my ass.

People said the same thing to the RIAA a while back for sharing songs and they all got sued. So nah. They gotta pay to use.

Copyright =/= liscence, so long as they arent reproducing the inputs copyright isnt applicable to AI.

That said they should have to make sure they arent reproducing inputs. Shouldnt be hard.

"I loose money when I pay for Netflix."