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.
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."
I'd settle for shortening the term of copyright.
Vote pirate party.
What's wrong with the sentiment expressed in the headline? AI training is not and should not be considered fair use. Also, copyright laws are broken in the west, more so in the east.
We need a global reform of copyright. Where copyrights can (and must) be shared among all creators credited on a work. The copyright must be held by actual people, not corporations (or any other collective entity), and the copyright ends after 30 years or when the all rights holders die, whichever happens first. That copyright should start at the date of initial publication. The copyright should be nontransferable but it should be able to be licensed to any other entity only with a majority consent of all rights holders. At the expiration of the copyright the work in question should immediately enter the public domain.
And fair use should be treated similarly to how it is in the west, where it's decided on a case-by-case basis, but context and profit motive matter.
Why 30 years, why not 10?
In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster ~~robot~~ android that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.
Edit: "robot" means "slave"
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.
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
I love your name
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.
"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"
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 enhances 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.
“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”
Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man
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.
I find it odd that Lemmy users are so adverse to tech.
People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn't apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.
In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.
The world doesn't allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren't adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.
The issue isn't with AI, it's with how companies position it. When they claim it'll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.
It also doesn't help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.
If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn't be so cold. But then there wouldn't be hype and AI wouldn't be actively shoved into everything.
I disagree with your take. I've found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it's development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.
I don't think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don't think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don't think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.
It's fairly obvious what's happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don't understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn't flourish. Rinse and repeat.
Yeah it's crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It's basically a cult
lol, this is a human trait, not a Reddit/Twitter/Lemmy "thing".
Okay.
It was fun while it lasted.
For someone.
I presume.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh no anyway.jpg
But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.
The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.
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.
fucking thank goodness
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
