this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1141 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4550 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaladKing@lemm.ee 10 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Capital calls its own theft "innovation" and that of the individual "crime".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] undrwater@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Truly open is the only way LLMs make sense.

They're using us and our content openly. The relationship should be reciprocal. Now, they need to somehow keep the servers running.

Perhaps a SETI like model?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

Oh no anyway.jpg

[–] FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago

fucking thank goodness

[–] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 104 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."

I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.

Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why does Sam have such a punchable face?

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (8 children)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 day ago

over it is then. Buh bye!

[–] magnus919@lemmy.brandyapple.com 5 points 18 hours ago

I'll take him seriously if & when OpenAI lives up to its name.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

What a giant load of crap.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Oops, oh well. I very much hope it's over, asshole.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago

Business that stole everyone's information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.

Yeah I'll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared... Wankers.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 8 points 20 hours ago

No, actually they've just finally admitted that they can't improve them any further because there's not enough training data in existence to squeeze any more demonizing returns out of.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 117 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Fine by me. Can it be over today?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 104 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Training that AI is absolutely fair use.

Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 60 points 1 day ago

So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it's insane to me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee 29 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I'm in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span--it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we'd be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.

5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I'd obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I'd like to see compulsory licensing applied to all written work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can't stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it's in the public domain.)

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] efrique@lemm.ee 212 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 day ago

Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 433 points 1 day ago (40 children)

That's a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you're the arsehole. ;)

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 121 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 74 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Good.

Fuck Sam Altman's greed. Pay the fucking artists you're robbing.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 89 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 overtly 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!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?

Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] momodocho@lemmings.world 6 points 22 hours ago
[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?

[–] RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Over in the US, that's giving China the advantage in AI development. Won't happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›