Comment on OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material

SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • jlow@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Word.

    source
  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨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 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, being fine with it being leveraged as best as possible (i.e. to hurt corporations).

      source
• mnglw@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m not so much in favor of IP law as I am in favor of informef consent.

  when posting photos, art and text content years ago, I was not able to imagine it might be trained off by an AI. As such I was not able to make a decision based on informed consent if I agreed to that or not.

  Even though quotes such as “once you post it, its on the internet forever” were around, I was not aware the extend to which this reached and that had my art been vacuumed by a generative AI model (it hasnt luckily) people could create art that pretends to be created by me. Thus I could not consent

  I think this goes for a lot of artists actually, especially those who exist far more publicly than I do

  source
• interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I still think IP needs to eat shit and die. Always has, always will.

  I recently found out we could have had 3d printing 20 years earlier but patents stopped that. Cocks !

  source
• Daxtron2@startrek.website ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s almost like most people are idiots who don’t understand the thing they’re against and are just parroting what they hear/read.

  source