admin

joined 1 year ago
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I respectfully disagree. I think small time AI (read: pretty much all the custom models on hugging face) will get a giant boost out of this, since they can get away with training on "custom" data sets - since they are too small to be held accountable.

However, those models will become worthless to enterprise level models, since they wouldn't be able to account for the legality. In other words, once you make big bucks of of AI you'll have to prove your models were sourced properly. But if you're just creating a model for small time use, you can get away with a lot.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You should change your name to afraid_of_reality. Have fun in your dream world, I'm out.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

People keep saying that, all the while ignoring that this bill is granting rights to small time creators to decide if they want their works used for machine learning.

Yes, this gives a head start to companies that have been abusing the system while it was still allowed. But stopping that behaviour too late is still better than not stopping it at all.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

What are you basing that on?

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers.

Doesn't say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I'm sure that's how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there's like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 4 months ago (10 children)
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 4 months ago

Hopefully the next step: force every platform that deals in user generated content to give users the choice to exploit that content for a fraction of the profit, or to exclude their content from processing.

It's amazing how many people don't realize that they themselves also hold copyright over their content, and that laws like these protect them as well.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 21 points 4 months ago (27 children)

In the same way that the law doesn't prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 21 points 4 months ago (8 children)

I'm the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev -5 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Because even when some of the water has gotten out, you still go plug the dam.

The best moment was earlier. The second best moment is now.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seeing as laws can't be applied retroactively, what would have been the alternative?

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 4 months ago

Interesting summary, although not really an unexpected result.

Side note: I like your username.

view more: ‹ prev next ›