this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1114 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4574 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

[–] BostonSamurai@lemm.ee 7 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Oh no, not the plagiarizing machine! How are rich hacks going to feign talent now? Pay an artist for it?! Crazy!

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Open can suck some dick.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago
[–] geography082@lemm.ee 38 points 7 hours ago

Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 27 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PeteZa@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago

They’re all motivated by greed.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 38 points 8 hours ago

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"

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 21 points 7 hours ago

Sounds fair, shut it down.

[–] azalty@jlai.lu 5 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It's called paying for the content

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

This.

I support AI, but I don't understand why AI bros are complicating things or making things all-or-nothing.

OpenAI had enough money to hire a hitman on one of their whistleblowers. They can afford to pay for content, lol.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 hours ago

But how will corporations like Disney survive without copywrites?! Won't someone think about the poor corporations?!

/s

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Why? Nothing they've shat out is good for anything anyway.

[–] azalty@jlai.lu 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

If not, AI is dead in the US

Technically, everything you write is copyrighted

[–] desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 hours ago

You don't need to say anything else, I'm already happy with that outcome

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Oh no, how horrible... AI is dead in the US? How shall we live? /sarcasm

[–] t0m4@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I’m not an american but losing in that area internationally might be way worse than to fight over training data.

Maybe not paying the full amount of the copyright, but I agree they should compensate the IP holders.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 10 points 5 hours ago

There are works that are free to use. They could also compensate copyright holders for their work. As they should since they are profiting from it.

[–] faberyayo@lemm.ee 11 points 7 hours ago

Fuck OpenAI for stealing the hard work of millions of people

[–] Daerun@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Have you thought about incorporating yourself into a company? Apparently that solves all legal problems.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ferroto@lemmy.world 16 points 8 hours ago

Good. Fuck AI

[–] FreddyNO@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Sounds good, fuck em

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 58 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ferroto@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago
[–] uis@lemm.ee 12 points 9 hours ago

Vote pirate party.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

What's wrong with the sentiment expressed in the headline? AI training is not and should not be considered fair use. Also, copyright laws are broken in the west, more so in the east.

We need a global reform of copyright. Where copyrights can (and must) be shared among all creators credited on a work. The copyright must be held by actual people, not corporations (or any other collective entity), and the copyright ends after 30 years or when the all rights holders die, whichever happens first. That copyright should start at the date of initial publication. The copyright should be nontransferable but it should be able to be licensed to any other entity only with a majority consent of all rights holders. At the expiration of the copyright the work in question should immediately enter the public domain.

And fair use should be treated similarly to how it is in the west, where it's decided on a case-by-case basis, but context and profit motive matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster ~~robot~~ android that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.

Edit: "robot" means "slave"

load more comments
view more: next ›