Technology

37712 readers

333 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

254

OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by sculd@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apparently, stealing other people's work to create product for money is now "fair use" as according to OpenAI because they are "innovating" (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit "misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wait, so if the way I make money is illegal now, it's the system's fault, isn't it? That means I can keep going because I believe I'm justified, right? Right?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

In order to apply that license, you will need to fully and unequivocally identify yourself (aka: doxx yourself). Not sure that's what you really want.

[–] morhp@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't believe this is true, a nickname or online account works completely fine for attribution if nothing else is given.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Attribution is not the problem. The problems are:

Entering a valid license agreement under a non-registered pseudonym.
Enforcing the conditions of the license, particularly the NC and SA parts, without revealing one's legal name.

Depending on the applicable legislation (US, UK, EU, other), either one or both of those points may not be possible.