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

Technology

66353 readers
6556 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] psyspoop@lemm.ee 49 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 8 minutes ago (2 children)

you can, however, go to your local library and read any book ever written for free

[–] lordkuri@lemmy.world 4 points 6 minutes ago (2 children)

Unless it's deemed a "bad" one by your local klanned karenhood and removed from the library for being tOo WoKe

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 minutes ago

klanned karenhood

Yoink

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 minutes ago

i almost wrote that caveat, but decided to leave it low hanging….
as far as i know, though, that only applies to children’s books at this point…

[–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 minutes ago

So can the AI

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It's a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws. We should be able too. But that isn't where our discussions were steered was it

[–] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 23 points 1 hour ago (3 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.

[–] Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee 15 points 37 minutes ago (1 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.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 points 9 minutes ago (1 children)

You don't have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it's just you won't have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 minutes ago

how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?

it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 5 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago) (1 children)

I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there's hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

You don't have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 18 points 1 hour ago

Good.

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

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 hour ago

If I'm using "AI" to generate subtitles for the "community" is ok if i have a large "datastore" of "licensable media" stored locally to work off of right?

[–] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 80 points 2 hours ago (1 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.

[–] jhdeval@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 15 points 1 hour 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.

[–] pogmommy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago

But you have to pay humans, and give them bathroom breaks, and allow them time off work to spend with their loved ones. Where's the profit in that? Surely it's more clever and efficient to shovel time and money into replacing something that will never be able to practically develop beyond current human understanding. After all, we're living in the golden age of humanity and history has ended! No new knowledge will ever be made so let's just make machines that regurgitate our infallible and complete knowledge.

[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 49 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 hour ago

If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 25 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago

Only if you're doing it to learn, I guess

Wait until all those expensive scientific journals hear about this

[–] stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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?

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 63 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 2 points 49 minutes ago

National security my ass. More like his time span to show more dumb "achievements" while getting richer depends on it and nothing else

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 hours ago

If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''

Otherwise, get fucked.

[–] patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I don’t think they’re wrong in saying that if they aren’t allowed to train on copyrighted works then they will fall behind. Maybe I missed it in the article, but Japan for example has that exact law (use of copyright to train generative AI is allowed).

Personally I think we need to give them somewhat of an out by letting them do it but then taxing the fuck out of the resulting product. “You can use copyrighted works for training but then 50% of your profits are taxed”. Basically a recognition that the sum of all copyrighted works is a societal good and not just an individual copyright holders.

https://jackson.dev/post/generative-ai-and-copyright/

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

No, taxes implies a monopoly on the training data. The government profits. The rights holders get nothing back.

If private data is deemed public for AI training then the results of that training (code+weights+source list) should also be deemed public.

[–] Konstant@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 hours ago

Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

Why does Sam keep threatening us with a good time?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 95 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Training that AI is absolutely fair use.

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

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 11 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Agreed... although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren't licensed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Horrabin@programming.dev 5 points 2 hours ago

This sounds like socialism is good for capitalists

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 103 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (4 children)

Fine by me. Can it be over today?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›