This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Good. I hope this is what happens.
No amigo, it's not fair if you're profiting from it in the long run.
This is basically a veiled admission that OpenAI are falling behind in the very arms race they started. Good, fuck Altman. We need less ultra-corpo tech bro bullshit in prevailing technology.
If giant megacorporations can benefit by ignoring copyright, us mortals should be able to as well.
Until then, you have the public domain to train on. If you don't want AI to talk like the 1920s, you shouldn't have extended copyright and robbed society of a robust public domain.
Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.
Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."
TLDR: "we should be able to steal other people's work, or we'll go crying to daddy Trump. But DeepSeek shouldn't be able to steal from the stuff we stole, because China and open source"
Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF
I have conflicting feelings about this whole thing. If you are selling the result of training like OpenAI does (and every other company), then I feel like it’s absolutely and clearly not fair use. It’s just theft with extra steps.
On the other hand, what about open source projects and individuals who aren’t selling or competing with the owners of the training material? I feel like that would be fair use.
What keeps me up at night is if training is never fair use, then the natural result is that AI becomes monopolized by big companies with deep pockets who can pay for an infinite amount of random content licensing, and then we are all forever at their mercy for this entire branch of technology.
The practical, socioeconomic, and ethical considerations are really complex, but all I ever see discussed are these hard-line binary stances that would only have awful corporate-empowering consequences, either because they can steal content freely or because they are the only ones that will have the resources to control the technology.
But if you stop me from criming, how will I get better at crime!?!
At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don't care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.
These fuckers are the first one to send tons of lawyers whenever you republish or use any IP of them. Fuck these idiots.
But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.
Why training openai with literally millions of copyrighted works is fair use, but me downloading an episode of a series not available in any platform means years of prison?
That's a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you're the arsehole. ;)
Not only that, but their business model doesn't hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was "free".
There's also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn't be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it's the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
Sounds fair, shut it down.
If I had to pay tuition for education (buying text books, pay for classes and stuff), then you have to pay me to train your stupid AI using my materials.
“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”
I'm fine with this. "We can't succeed without breaking the law" isn't much of an argument.
Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.
But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you've downloaded on your PC that you didn't pay for - tell them it's for "research and training purposes", just like AI uses stuff it didn't pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.
It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.
Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they're fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you've been stealing.
Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo
"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."
I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.
Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.
Oh no, not the plagiarizing machine! How are rich hacks going to feign talent now? Pay an artist for it?! Crazy!
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
Then let it be over then.
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
Good. Fuck AI
I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.
The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.
Fuck OpenAI for stealing the hard work of millions of people
Good. If I ever published anything, I would absolutely not want it to be pirated by AI so some asshole can plagiarize it later down the line and not even cite their sources.
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
That sounds like a you problem.
"Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overtly unethical", great pitch guys.
I mean that's like arguing "our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you'll destroy our nation!"
Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man
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!
Vote pirate party.
Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.
over it is then. Buh bye!
Business that stole everyone's information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.
Yeah I'll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared... Wankers.
Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.
The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.
Here in the Netherlands, we know that it's true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren't respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.
And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.
The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.
