this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
605 points (97.2% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
809 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
605
very upsetting (lemmy.ml)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

captiona screenshot of the text:

Tech companies argued in comments on the website that the way their models ingested creative content was innovative and legal. The venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which has several investments in A.I. start-ups, warned in its comments that any slowdown for A.I. companies in consuming content “would upset at least a decade’s worth of investment-backed expectations that were premised on the current understanding of the scope of copyright protection in this country.”

underneath the screenshot is the "Oh no! Anyway" meme, featuring two pictures of Jeremy Clarkson saying "Oh no!" and "Anyway"

screenshot (copied from this mastodon post) is of a paragraph of the NYT article "The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 96 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

We need copyright reform. Life of author plus 70 for everything is just nuts.

This is not an AI problem. This is a companies literally owning our culture problem.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

We do need copyright reform, but also fuck "AI." I couldn't care less about them infringing on proprietary works, but they're also infringing on copyleft works and for that they deserve to be shut the fuck down.

Either that, or all the output of their "AI" needs to be copyleft.

[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not just the output. One could construct that training your model on GPL content which would have it create GPL content means that the model itself is now also GPL.

It's why my company calls GPL parasitic, use it once and it's everywhere.

This is something I consider to be one of the main benefits of this license.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So if I read a copyleft text or code once, because I understood and learned from it any text I write in the future also has to be copyleft?

HOLY SHIT!

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Doctor here, I'm sorry to inform you that you have a case of parasitic copyleftiosis. Your brain is copyleft, your body is copyleft, and even your future children will be copyleft.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

GPL. Not even once!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MustrumR@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago

Going one step deeper, at the source, it's oligarchy and companies owning the law and in consequence also its enforcement.

[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 6 points 9 months ago

If this is what it takes to get copyright reform, just granting tech companies unlimited power to hoover up whatever they want and put it in their models, it's not going to be the egalitarian sort of copyright reform that we need. Instead, we will just getting a carve out just for this, which is ridiculous.

There are small creators who do need at least some sort of copyright control, because ultimately people should be paid for the work they do. Artists who work on commission are the people in the direct firing line of generative AI, both in commissions and in their day jobs. This will harm them more than any particular company. I don't think models will suffer if they can only include works in the public domain, if the public domain starts in 2003, but that's not the kind of copyright protection that Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. want, and that's not what they're going to ask for.

[–] LavaPlanet@lemmy.world 58 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Piracy / stealing content is ok for big corps Piracy / stealing content punishable by life in prison for us proletarians

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (7 children)

This is simply not stealing. Viewing content has never ever ever been stealing.

There is no view right.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

They are downloading the data so thei LLM can "view" it. How is that different than downloading movies to view them?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jamyang@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tech illiterate guy here. All these Ml models require training data, right? So all these AI companies that develop new ML based chat/video/image apps require data. So where exactly do they? It can't be that their entire dataset is licensed, isn't it?

If so, are there any firms that are using these orgs for data theft? How to know if the model has been trained on your data? Sorry if this is not the right place to ask.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

You know how you look at a pic on the internet and don't pay? The AI is basically doing the same thing only it's collecting the effect of the data points ( like pixels in a picture) more accurately. The input no matter what it is only moves a set of weights. That's all. It does not copy anything it is trained on.

Yes it can reproduce with some level of accuracy any work just like a painter or musician could replay a piece they see or hear.

Again, this is not theft any more than u hearing a Song or viewing a selfie.

[–] BellaDonna@mujico.org 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I make the exact argument all the time and it gets ignored. I think people fundamentally don't understand the tech and can't conceptualize that AI models train the same way we get ideas and schemas from our own observations.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] postnataldrip@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's what would be called "a swing and a miss"

It's almost like speculating has risks

[–] ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Bu-bu-but you didn't think of my investors!

[–] Aremel@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm gonna play them a song on the world's smallest violin.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] antrosapien@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

And i'm gonna put this for me Lucky 10000

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

"You can't just decide we were wrong about IP, that would make us broke!"

[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Can we just put all the media and technology executives in an alley where they can fight it out like the scene from Anchorman?

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Let's just find and island and Australia them.

[–] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I feel like we could improve the situation by making kangaroos carnivorous and predatory

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

I saw that! Brick killed a guy! Did you throw a trident?

Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident!

Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.

[–] far_university1990@feddit.de 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Either this kill large AI models (at least commercial). Or it kill some copyright bs in some way. Whatever happens, society wins.

Second option could also hurt small creator though.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I fear this is a giant power grab. What this will lead to is that IP holders, those that own the content that AI needs to train will dictate prices. So all the social media content you kindly gave reddit, facebook, twitter, pictures, all that stuff means you won't be able to have any free AI software.

No free / open source AI software means there is a massive power imbalance because now only those who can afford to buy this training data and do it, any they are forced to maximize profits (and naturally inclined anyway).

Basically they will own the "means of generation" while we won't.

[–] far_university1990@feddit.de 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Current large model would all be sued to death, no license with IP owner yet, would kill all existing commercial large models. Except all IP owner are named and license granted retroactive, but sound unlikely.

Hundred of IP owner company and billion of individual IP owner setting prices will probably behave like streaming: price increase and endless fragmentation. Need a license for every IP owner, paperwork will be extremely massive. License might change, expire, same problem as streaming but every time license expire need to retrain entire model (or you infringe because model keep using data).

And in the EU you have right to be forgotten, so excluded from models (because in this case not transformative enough, ianal but sound like it count as storing), so every time someone want to be excluded, retrain entire model.

Do not see where it possible to create large model like this with any amount of money, time, electricity. Maybe some smaller models. Maybe just more specific for one task.

Also piracy exists, do not care about copyright, will just train and maybe even open source (torrent). Might get caught, might not, might become dark market, idk. Will exist though, like deepfakes.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah those are the myriad of complications this will cause. People are worried about AI, I'm too, but we need smart regulation not to use IP laws that only increases power of the ultra-rich. Because if AI will continue to exist, that will severely distort and limit the market to very specific powerful entities. And that is almost certainly going to be worse than completely unregulated.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 6 points 9 months ago

I know plenty of small creators who urge me to pirate their content.

Because all they want is people to enjoy their content, and piracy helps spread their art.

So even small creators are against copyright.

[–] peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I won't deny that small bit of skill it took to construct a plausible sounding explanation for why the public should support your investment, because it's "not illegal (yet)".

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"technically this thievery isn't covered by law"

"technically this what?”

"OBJECTION!”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They have chosen to think that if it runs through AI, it is then a derivative, it is not. If I put Disney and Amazon together as a prompt, things come out very similar to their logos and it's obviously a copyright infringement. The worst part of this, they'll still steal all of the small artists and avoid the larger ones.

https://imgur.com/a/Rhgi0OC

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget that they will then switch sides and try to copyright "their work", preventing others from even thinking about their work without paying the toll.

Hey, what if I were to draw two circles...

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

I hadn't thought of that, we truly are fucked.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't give a shit about copyright for training AI.

But I don't give a shit about investors, either.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 11 points 9 months ago (14 children)

Copyright should ceise to exist and sharing digital copies of any content should be a protected right. The best software is foss anyway.

But if i cant have that i will settle for techbross going to jail for mass theft. Either the law is equal or it is unlawful.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

That's the point about money, if you have enough you can simply sue or bribe in order to not lose money.

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

A'ight. Time to self host the entire of the internet in a server and do machine learning with the content I stored. :)

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

"In other news, the new Dacia Sandero looks fabulous."

[–] db2@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"warned"

Or what? I want to see that bluster called.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago

Or their victims will realize they got scammed.

[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Let them fight!

load more comments
view more: next ›