869
Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
869 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
66353 readers
4391 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Perhaps this is just a problem with the way the model works. Always requiring new data and unable to use current data, to ponder and expand upon while making new connections about ideas that influenced the author… LLM’s are a smoke and mirrors show, not a real intelligence.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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?
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
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)
So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?
Only if you're doing it to learn, I guess
Wait until all those expensive scientific journals hear about this
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?
If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''
Otherwise, get fucked.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!
What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
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!
Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".
If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be "natural" intelligence.
Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro
It's so wild how laws just have no idea what to do with you if you just add one layer of proxy. "Nooo I'm not stealing and plagerizing, it's the AI doing it!"
yeah thats crazy
I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.
load more comments
(3 replies)
For Sam:
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.
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.
fully agree, the only way I'm ok with fair use for AI is if the resulting product is public use. Even if they want to charge for the product to use their frontend, give the ability to use the system local (if your system can support it) much like how most self hosting software does it
load more comments
(1 replies)