this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
524 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

60081 readers
4203 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 another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
524
‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
320 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think it's pretty amazing when people just run with the dogma that empowers billionaires.

Every creator hopes they'll be the next taylor swift and that they'll retain control of their art for those life + 70 years and make enough to create their own little dynasty.

The reality is that long duration copyright is almost exclusively a tool of the already wealthy, not a tool for the not-yet-wealthy. As technology improves it will be easier and easier for wealth to control the system and deny the little guy's copyright on grounds that you used something from their vast portfolio of copyright/patent/trademark/ipmonopolyrulelegalbullshit. Already civil legal disputes are largely a function of who has the most money.

I don't have the solution that helps artists earn a living, but it doesn't seem like copyright is doing them many favors as-is unless they are retired rockstars who have already earned in excess of the typical middle class lifetime earnings by the time they hit 35, or way earlier.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I don’t have the solution that helps artists earn a living, but it doesn’t seem like copyright is doing them many favors as-is unless they are retired rockstars who have already earned in excess of the typical middle class lifetime earnings by the time they hit 35, or way earlier.

Just because copyright helps them less doesn't mean it doesn't help them at all. And at the end of the day, I'd prefer to support the retired rockstars over the stealing billionaires.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

deleted

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Current Copyright Law Imperfect,

Yeah and Joseph Stalin was a bit naughty. As long as we are seeing how understated we can be.

If you don’t have the solution, perhaps you should not attack one of the remaining defenses against rampant abuses of peoples’ livelihood.

The creator of Superman wasnt paid royalties and was laid off. Many years later he worked a restaurant delivery guy and ended up dropping off food at DC comics. The artist that built that company doing a sandwich run.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

deleted

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you got an accusation go ahead and make it. I will be hearing downloading a fucking car

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

deleted

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I am on topic. Our copyright system is flamming garbage and this is a money grab. Everyone is sitting here getting all worked up about who the criminal is and I am asking who the victim is.

Tell me the name of the artist whose career was ruined by AI copying their original art work. I am not impressed by J.K. "billionaire terf" Rowling POTENTIALLY not making another half million. If you can't produce a victim then there is no crime.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

deleted

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Wouldn't know. I don't click random links. If you have an argument make it.