Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”

  • sub_o
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    https://petapixel.com/2024/01/03/court-docs-reveal-midjourney-wanted-to-copy-the-style-of-these-photographers/

    What’s stopping AI companies from paying royalties to artists they ripped off?

    Also, lol at accounts created within few hours just to reply in this thread.

    The moment their works are the one that got stolen by big companies and driven out of business, watch their tune change.

    Edit: I remember when Reddit did that shitshow, and all the sudden a lot of sock / bot accounts appeared. I wasn’t expecting it to happen here, but I guess election cycle is near.

    • flatbield
      link
      fedilink
      English
      166 months ago

      Money is not always the issue. FOSS software for example. Who wants their FOSS software gobbled up by a commercial AI regardless. So there are a variety of issues.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        46 months ago

        I don’t care if any of my FOSS software is gobbled up by a commercial AI. Someone reading my code isn’t a problem to me. If it were, I wouldn’t publish it openly.

        • sub_o
          link
          fedilink
          English
          186 months ago

          I do, especially when someone’s profiting from it, while my license is strictly for non commercial.

          • The Doctor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            116 months ago

            Same. I didn’t write it for them. I wrote it for folks who don’t necessarily have a lot of money but want something useful.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              Well, for $20/mo I get a super-educated virtual assistant/tutor. It’s pretty awesome.

              I’d say that’s some good value for people without much money. All of my open source libs are published under the MIT license if I recall correctly. I’ve made so much money using open source software, I don’t mind giving back, even to people who are going to make money with my code.

              It makes me feel good to think my code could be involved in money changing hands. It’s evidence to me that I built something valuable.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                36 months ago

                $20/mo

                good value for people without much money

                The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.

                AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won’t be able to benefit from it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  16 months ago

                  And yet it is orders of magnitude less than it cost a year ago to hire someone to do research, write reports, and tutor me in any subject I want.

                  If an artist can’t afford $20/mo they need a job to support that hobby.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It’s not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.

                    I also think this attitude (“just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work”) shows an overall lack of respect for artists.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      What’s stopping AI companies from paying royalties to artists they ripped off?

      profit. AI is not even a profitable business now. They exist because of the huge amount of investment being poured into it. If they have to pay their fair share they would not exist as a business.

      what OpenAI says is actually true. The issue IMHO is the idea that we should give them a pass to do it.

      • sub_o
        link
        fedilink
        English
        116 months ago

        Uber wasn’t making profit anyway, despite all the VCs money behind it.

        I guess they have reasons not to pay drivers properly. Give Uber a free pass for it too

        • frog 🐸
          link
          fedilink
          English
          76 months ago

          When you think about it, all companies would make so much more money if they didn’t have to pay their staff, or pay for materials they use! This whole economy and capitalism business, which relies on money being exchanged for goods and services, is clearly holding back profits. Clearly the solution here is obvious: everybody should embrace OpenAI’s methods and simply grab whatever they want without paying for it. Profit for everyone!