AI Video Generator Runway Trained on Thousands of YouTube Videos Without Permission

Comments

• gwindli@lemy.lol ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m starting to think commercial AI should be banned. if the only way to make useful models is by ingesting human culture, then all humans should benefit from it without having to pay to have that culture shat back out in response to a prompt.

  source

  • drdiddlybadger@pawb.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Im starting to agree with that premise. Since these models only exist using the public’s data they should be public models only. No commercial use.

    source
  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The “issue” is that this logic applies to all human creations as well.

    source

    • gwindli@lemy.lol ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      i disagree. IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means… but both the scale an impunity and frankly the entitlement exhibited by these GenAI companies is on another level.

      no matter how many times people make the argument that AIs are just “doing what humans do”, it fails to sway me. an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Ava@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sure, but the argument isn’t “should we ban work that is based on the study of past cultural creation” it’s “we should prevent computational/commercial exploitation of past cultural creation in order to protect the interests of humans.”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • GBU_28@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT

    source
  • master5o1@lemmy.nz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think the alternative: copyright should be looser. It usually only benefits corporations and lawyers.

    Though it would be naive to consider AI companies and ally in a goal to reduce copyright terms.

    source
  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Same can be said of commercial Schools, Colleges, and Universities.

    source
• orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Companies use pirated content: line go up! 📈

  Everyday people use pirated content: STRAIGHT TO JAIL!

  source

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If companies were really treated like people, they’d be in jail right now - at least in the US. But they wouldn’t come out reformed, just beaten and bruised, ready to commit more crimes.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    source

    • Glide@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The point of treating companies like people is so no one in those companies can be held accountable. The worst case for them that the intangible “coorporation” did something wrong and now it has to go away, so the entire board moves to a new company under a new name that owns the same properties and has the same practices. Only now they have practice obfuscating their crimes.

      What ends lives and careers for people are just a minor inconvinience to coorporations.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Railcar8095@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The funny thing is that Google can’t make a big fuss about it without screwing themselves when they are inevitably sued for the same thing.

  source
• jlow@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Surprise!

  source
• bownage@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Hehe we do a little scraping

  source
• state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I am shocked that an AI company would do this. This is unprecedented.

  source
• moon@lemmy.cafe ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It should be assumed by default that data collection is almost always non-consensual.

  source