61–70 of 135 posts
it would be a shame if it would be possible to train a very useful AI using all the books in the world but corporate greed wouldn’t allow it
It's pretty much the opposite: Big corporates are the ones training the models (and benefiting from it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And if those creators were instead to try to introduce legislation, the AI companies would risk losing access to content from small creators without the means to sue too. this is the point of a class action suit isn't it? if it turns out training isn't fair use then Microsoft/Google/OpenAI will suddenly have class action suits for billions if not trillions of damages against them ($150,000 damages per willful infri…
Have you never seen the outcome of a class action? They’re all slaps in the wrist, less than speeding tickets, and the action members get like a free hotdog or red bull as compensation if they’re lucky
the aim would be to make training on copyrighted material legally toxic and render all existing datasets and trained weights unlawful
the damages are simply a bonus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> incentive for original works maybe goes down I don't know why you would have that concern. LOTS of people write because they just want to share. Now broaden it out to include speech. LOTS of people talk - it's what we do. Progress in AI will happen because humans like to express themselves. The challenge isn't copyright. It's figuring out how to capture the vast content that just isn't getting captured. Also, this…
> LOTS of people write because they just want to share. You just gave up the "for a living" group, who arguably produce overall better content (of course there are exceptions), and focused on hobbyists. I'd call that a self-defeat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LOTS of people write because they just want to share. You just gave up the "for a living" group, who arguably produce overall better content (of course there are exceptions), and focused on hobbyists. I'd call that a self-defeat.
Most all humans communicate for a living. I don't see your point.
it would be a shame if it would be possible to train a very useful AI using all the books in the world but corporate greed wouldn’t allow it
It's pretty much the opposite: Big corporates are the ones training the models (and benefiting from it).
What's next for models like GPT now that a lot of sites will outright block CCBot, GPTBot and others? How big of an impact is this going to have on the LLM itself? Isn't OpenAI in a bit of a pickle in regards to this? The problem with my question is the following: Content gets syndicated anyway, so if DigitalOcean blocks GPTBot (which it does), pretty much every single one of those tutorials will be syphoned off to o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Texts were copied even before the printing press. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright for more information.
They were, usually to preserve the work, not distribute it on a large scale because there was no large scale. What's your argument ?
Once the printing press arrived the patron / publisher needed another way to monetize their initial investment as modes of reproduction became more easy, copyright became more restrictive.
Depending on your side of the copyright argument, it either allows whomever is making the initial investment (publisher, author) to be a generous patron of human creative progress ... or ... it allows the to maintain a monopoly on knowledge and be able to profit off it.
What worries me most is that this is likely to only increase the gap between large corporate creator and small independent creators. Large AI companies probably are not too worried about making deals with corporate content creators. Having access to content from a trigger-happy creator is only going to increase their advantage over competitors, after all. And if those creators were instead to try to introduce legisla…
[flagged]
> This was never the case. Copyright was always a method to enforce private property as a core concept as it's integral to capitalism functioning.
Yeah, copyright was never intended to protect creativity, it was just intended to allow people to make a living by being creative.
Somehow something about that doesn't seem to quite add up.
> Just like police were never about promoting safety and wellbeing.
Please do a bit of research on what happens when laws stop being enforced.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Metropolitan_Po...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were, usually to preserve the work, not distribute it on a large scale because there was no large scale. What's your argument ?
I'd guess the point is that prior to the invention of the printing press, an "author" would be financed through a patron. That patron could monetize their initial investment by either hiring people to copy a work by hand or allowing access to the book. Once the printing press arrived the patron / publisher needed another way to monetize their initial investment as modes of reproduction became more easy, copyright bec…
The length of modern copyright terms is absurd and harmful.
The USA started with 14 (plus optionally another 14) which was better.
Last I checked - quite a few year ago - I think there were academic papers calculating that an "optimal" copyright term is probably around 10-14 years.