this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
254 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37801 readers
161 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
 

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
[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

IP law used to stop corporations from profiting off of creators' labor without compensation? Yeah, absolutely.

IP law used to stop individuals from consuming media where purchases wouldn't even go to the creators, but some megacorp? Fuck that.

I'm against downloading movies by indie filmmakers without compensating them. I'm not against downloading films from Universal and Sony.

I'm against stealing food from someone's garden. I'm not against stealing food from Safeway.

If you stop looking at corporations as being the same as individuals, it's a very simple and consistent viewpoint.

IP law shouldn't exist, but if it does it should only exist to protect individuals from corporations. When that's how it's being used, like here, I accept it as a necessary evil.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

IP law used to compensate creators "until their death + 70 years"... you can spin it however you want, that's just plain wrong.

If you stop looking at corporations as being the same as individuals

That's a separate bonkers legislation. Two wrongs don't make one right.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I never said I like IP law. I explicitly said it shouldn't exist. I wish they'd strip out any post-humous ownership, absolutely. But I'm fine beating OpenAI over the head with that or any other law. Whether I advocate for or against copyright law will ultimately have no impact on its existence, so I may as well cheer it on when it's used to hurt corporations, and condemn it when it's used to protect corporations over individuals.

That’s a separate bonkers legislation

I'm not talking about the legislation, I'm talking about the mindset, which is very prevalent in the pro-AI tech spaces. Go to HackerNews and see just how hard the AI-bros there will fellate each other over "corporate rights".

My whole point is that there is nothing logically inconsistent with being against IP law, but also understanding that since its existence is reality, leveraging it as best as possible (i.e. to hurt corporations).

[–] jlow@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago