241–250 of 845 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You need a big "/s" after this. Or maybe just not post it at all, because it's just value-less snark and not a substantial comment on how hypocritical and harmful OpenAI is (which they certainly are).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm responding specifically to this sentence: > It's shameful that they are making claims that they aren't infringing creator's rights when they have scraped the entire internet. Scraping the Internet is generally very different from piracy. You are given a limited right to that data when you access it, and you can make local copies. if further use does something sufficiently non-copying, then creator rights aren't b…
Can you compress the internet including copyrighted material and then sell access to it? At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes infringement?
Define access?
If you mean sending out the compressed copy, generally no. For things people normally call compression.
If you want to run a search engine, then you should be fine.
> At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes infringement?
It would have to be very very lossy.
But some AI stuff is. For example there are image models with fewer parameters than source images. Those are, by and large, not able to store enough data to infringe with. (Copying can creep in with images that have multiple versions, but that's a small sliver of the data.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
owning a copy and learning the information is not the same. you can learn 2+2=4 from a book, but you no longer need that book to get that answer. each year in school, I was issued a book for class, learned from it, returned the book. I did not return the learning. musicians can read the sheet music and memorize how to play it, and no longer need the music. they still have the information.
But you still need to buy the sheet music first, all the AI Labs used pirated materials to learn from. There's two angles to the lawsuits that are getting confused - the largest one from the book publishers (Sarah Silverman et al) attacked from the angle that the models could reproduce copyrighted information. This was pretty easily quelled / RHLF'd out (used to be that if ChatGPT started producing lyrics a superviso…
- Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright
- Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet)
and a future where:
- We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant...
And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies.
(Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other American AI companies. It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers' unions that are leading the charge against American AI. American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why?…
If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.
i really don't understand this argument. at which point is it violating copyright versus an intelligence learning and making content the same way as humans? it was living cells, but they worked as transistors, would it be ok? it was whole-brain emulation on silicon transistors, would it be ok? it was a generative AI similar to what we have today, but 100x more sentient and self aware, is that ok? if you locked a huma…
Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe…
It's bad for competitors who didn't break the law, bad for future companies who have to gamble on if they're getting a pass at breaking the next big thing's law, and bad for parties who suffered losses they didn't expect because they were working within the law.
If you want to throw out the copyright system I'm right there with you, but change the laws, don't just reward lawbreaking and cronyism.
Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe…
For that you need actual AGI and it's nowhere in sight other than in the dreams of a few doom prophets.
Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot surpass its training data.
I heard the theory that Elon Musk has a significant control over the current US government. They're not best pals with Sam Altman. This seems like it might be a good way to see how much power Elon actually has over the government?
I think we are beyond the "theory" phase by now. Just yesterday I saw the president of a country advertising the products of a private company (Trump making an obvious marketing ploy for Tesla). How can this ever be acceptable?