101
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
101 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
882 readers
301 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
That is super not how fair use works:
Considering that OpenAI is making a commercial profit from developing its ML models, they seem to have missed #1 already. #3 also because the model usually ingests the entire work, not just part of it.
Actually, this makes me wonder if the design of OpenAI's business structure is intended to try to abuse this:
So, the "non-profit" part of OpenAI collects the data for "research" purposes, but then the for-profit side sells the product.
All of them are considered in tandem, not individually.
They are losing money during development (all those GPUs are not free and running them costs a lot of energy), they are making the money after it's trained. Just factual inaccuracy.
And being used for commercial purpose is not automatic rejection. Take YouTube, where fair use comes up constantly. Almost all the cases are for commercial purpose, but most qualify under fair use.
While they are trained on full works, the used work in the result is different. Probably minimal considering the size of the models. The fact that some courts already ruled that "AI" works can't be copyrighted gives weight to the argument that it's a unique work.
It's very hard to argue that "AI" generated is different from someone looking at the original and making a copy by hand. And since the latter is allowed, by the same token is the former.
It is fascinating how liberal media are all collectively deluding themselves into believing any of these court cases are going to stop these AI companies in any way.
Firstly, on the pure merits ML training is obviously transformative. A LLM is just obviously a completely different thing from an internet article. They are just completely different classes of things, whatever you might think of their respective values. Granted, copyright has been in past decades massively overused and applied to totally ludicrous things so it isn't impossible that courts make an idiotic decision.
That won't actually matter though because congress will instantly "solve" the problem. There are many reasons for that chiefly; Tech companies have a lot of power, and CHYNA.
i dont think it really matters. this is going to be an all out war between media companies and big tech and big tech is much much bigger.