I can already tell this is going to be a unpopular opinion judging by the comments but this is my ideology on it
it’s totally true. I’m indifferent on it, if it was acquired by a public facing source I don’t really care, but like im definitly against using data dumps or data that wasn’t available to the public in the first place. The whole thing with AI is rediculous, it’s the same as someone going to a website and making a mirror, or a reporter making an article that talks about what’s in it, last three web search based AI’s even gave sources for where it got the info. I don’t get the argument.
if it’s image based AI, well it’s the equivalent to an artist going to an art museum and deciding they want to replicate the art style seen in a painting. Maybe they shouldn’t be in a publishing field if they don’t want their work seen/used. That’s my ideology on it it’s not like the AI is taking a one-to-one copy and selling the artwork as , which in my opinion is a much more harmful instance and already happens commonly in today’s art world, it’s analyzing existing artwork which was available through the same means that everyone else had of going online loading up images and scraping the data. By this logic, artist should not be allowed to enter any art based websites museums or galleries, since by looking at others are they are able to adjust their own art which is stealing the author’s work. I’m not for or against it but, the ideology is insane to me.
oh no! We’ll miss you, bye.
Honestly, that sounds like a You problem, Sam.
deleted by creator
Then go out of business.
Literally, “fuck you go die” situation.
Yeah! I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay for the ingredients, so I should be allowed to steal them. How else can I make money??
Alternatively:
OpenAI is no different from pirate streaming sites in this regard (loosely: streaming sites are way more useful to humanity). If OpenAI gets a pass, so should every site that’s been shut down for piracy.
This is actually a very good comparison because restaurants use this argument all the time, except for wages:
“I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay a living wage to my servers, so you should pay them with tips. How else can we stay open?”
These business that can’t operate profitably like any other business should fail.
If OpenAI wants a pass, then just like how piracy services make content freely open and available, they should make their models open.
Give me the weights, publish your datasets, slap on a permissive license.
If you’re not willing to contribute back to society with what you used from it, then you shouldn’t exist within society until you do so.
No they shouldn’t. They should cease to exist
Generative AI is not going back into the bag. If not OpenAI, then someone else will control it. So we deal with them the next best way, force them to serve us, the people.
Nobody should profit from copyright violation. Yes, copyright law needs to change, but making money isn’t an exception
Generative AI is not going back into the bag.
It probably will, though, once model collapse sets in.
That’s the irony, really… the more successful it is, the sooner it’ll poison itself to death.
Then they can either pay for the copyrighted data they want to train on or lobby for copyright to be reigned in for everyone. Right now, they’re acting like entitled twats with a shit business model demanding they get a free pass while the rest of us would be bankrupted for downloading a Metallica MP3.
I think this better solves the issue.
The problem isn’t necessarily the use of copyrighted works, (although it can be a problem in many ways) it’s the unfair legal determination of who is allowed to do so.
Good luck putting the cat back in the bag.
I have cats. Putting them back in a bag or box is easier
Well if everyone who’s copyrighted work independently sues OpenAI, that cat will be deceased real quick due to bankruptcy
Fuck copyright they used gplv3 code why isnt it open source
Piracy steals from the rich and gives to the poor. ChatGPT steals from the rich and the poor and keeps for itself.
and keeps for itself.
Which is why they should be legally compelled to publicize all of their datasets, models, research, and share any profits they’ve made with the works they can get provenance data for, because otherwise, it’s an unfair use of the public sphere of content.
One could very easily argue that adblockers are piracy, and those would be stealing from every social media creator, small blog, and independent news site, but I don’t see many people arguing against that, even though that very well includes people who aren’t wealthy corporations.
The issue isn’t necessarily the use of the copyrighted content, it’s the unfair legal stance taken on who can use the content, and how they are allowed to profit (or not profit) from it.
I’m not saying there are no downsides, but I do feel like a simple black and white dichotomy doesn’t properly outline how piracy and generative AI training are relatively similar in terms of who they steal from, and it’s more of a matter of what is done with the content after it is taken that truly matters most.
K, so Google should be shut down too?
They can’t operate without scraping copyrighted data.
This is a false equivalency.
Google used to act as a directory for the internet along with other web search services. In court, they argued that the content they scrapped wasn’t easily accessible through the searches alone and had statistical proof that the search engine was helping bring people to more websites, not preventing them from going. At the time, they were right. This was the “good” era of Google, a different time period and company entirely.
Since then, Google has parsed even more data, made that data easily available in the google search results pages directly (avoiding link click-throughs), increased the number of services they provide to the degree that they have a conflict of interest on the data they collect and a vested interest in keeping people “on google” and off the other parts of the web, and participated in the same bullshit policies that OpenAI started with their Gemini project. Whatever win they had in the 2000s against book publishers, it could be argued that the rights they were “afforded” back in those days were contingent on them being good-faith participants and not competitors. OpenAI and “summary” models that fail to reference sources with direct links, make hugely inaccurate statements, and generate “infinite content” by mashing together letters in the worlds most complicated markov chain fit in this category.
It turns out, if you’re afforded the rights to something on a technicality, it’s actually pretty dumb to become brazen and assume that you can push these rights to the breaking point.
Google (and search engines in general) is at least providing a service by indexing and making discoverable the websites they crawl. OpenAI is is just hoovering up the data and providing nothing in return. Socializing the cost, privatizing the profits.
Uh, that’s objectively false.
OoenAI also provides ChatGPT as a “free” service, and Google has made billions off of that “free” service they oh so altruistically provide you.
Google points to your content so others can find it.
OpenAI scrapes your content to use to make more content.
That’s not a meaningful distinction, I spent all day using a Copilot search engine because the answers I wanted were scattered across a bunch of different documentation sites.
It was both using the AI models to interpret my commands (not generation at all), and then only publishes content to me specifically.
Technically it is meaningful, fair use is for specifically things that don’t replace the original in function.
Depends on what the function was. If the function was to drive ad revenue to your site, then sure, if the function was to get information into the public, then it’s not replacing the function so much as altering and updating it.
I’m talking about the training phase of LLMs.that is the portion that is doing the scraping and generation of copy written data.
You using an already trained LLM to do some searches is not the same thing.
It’s absolutely a meaningful distinction. Search engines push people to tour website where you can capitalize on your audience however you see fit. LLM’s take your content, through them through the mixer and sell it back to people. It’s the difference between a movie reviewer explaining a movie and a dude in an alley selling a pirated copy of the movie.
A) An LLM does not inherently sell you anything. Some companies charge you to run and use their LLMs (OpenAI), and some companies publish their LLMs open source for anyone to use (Meta, Microsoft). With neural chips starting to pop in PCs and phones, pretty soon anyone will be able to run an open source LLM locally on their machine, completely for free.
B) LLMs still rarely regurgitate the exact same original source. This would be more like someone in the back alley putting on their own performance of the movie and morphing it and adjusting it in real time based on your prompts and comments, which is a lot closer to parody and fair use than blatant piracy.
Sounds like an argument slave owners would use. “My plantation can’t make money without free labor!”
“My private prison can’t make money without more overconvicted inmates!”
In any sane society, closing a private prison would be cause for celebration.
My plantation can’t make money without everybody’s labour.
Copying information is not the same thing as stealing, let alone forcing people into slavery.
appreciate the important reality check, but I think the parent was just highlighting the absurdity of the original argument with hyperbole.
people are in jail for doing exactly what this company is doing. either enforce the laws equally (!) or change them (whatever that means in late stage capitalism).
Let’s advocate for no one going to prison for scraping information then. Let’s pick the second one where we don’t put more people into prison.
agreed.
How do you think slave owners got bailouts after the 13th amendment was passed and the slaves got freed?
Reminds me of that time the Federal government granted land parcels to a bunch of former slaves (using land from plantations) and then rescinded them again.
They used that part of the 13th that said “Well, except prisoners, those can be slaves.” Local law enforcement rounded up former slaves on trumped up charges and leased them back to the same plantation owners they were freed from. Only now if they escaped they were “escaped criminals” and they could count on even northern law enforcement returning them. The US is still a pro-slavery country and will be as long as that part of the 13th amendment stands.
It’s impossible for me to make money without robbing a bank, please let me do that parliament it would be so funny
Oh, poor baby can’t make money with an illegal business model. How awful.
So search engines shouldn’t exist?
I mean, their goal and service is to get you to the actual web page someone else made.
What made Google so desirable when it started was that it did an excellent job of getting you to the desired web page and off of google as quickly as possible. The prevailing model at the time was to keep users on the page for as long as possible by creating big messy “everything portals”.
Once Google dropped, with a simple search field and high quality results, it took off. Of course now they’re now more like their original competitors than their original successful self … but that’s a lesson for us about what capitalistic success actually ends up being about.
The whole AI business model of completely replacing the internet by eating it up for free is the complete sith lord version of the old portal idea. Whatever you think about copyright, the bottom line is that the deeper phenomenon isn’t just about “stealing” content, it’s about eating it to feed a bigger creature that no one else can defeat.
I really think it’s mostly about getting a big enough data set to effectively train an LLM.
I really think it’s mostly about getting a big enough data set to effectively train an LLM.
I mean, yes of course. But I don’t think there’s any way in which it is just about that. Because the business model around having and providing services around LLMs is to supplant the data that’s been trained on and the services that created that data. What other business model could there be?
In the case of google’s AI alongside its search engine, and even chatGPT itself, this is clearly one of the use cases that has emerged and is actually working relatively well: replacing the internet search engine and giving users “answers” directly.
Users like it because it feels more comfortable, natural and useful, and probably quicker too. And in some cases it is actually better. But, it’s important to appreciate how we got here … by the internet becoming shitter, by search engines becoming shitter all in the pursuit of ads revenue and the corresponding tolerance of SEO slop.
IMO, to ignore the “carnivorous” dynamics here, which I think clearly go beyond ordinary capitalism and innovation, is to miss the forest for the trees. Somewhat sadly, this tech era (approx MS windows '95 to now) has taught people that the latest new thing must be a good idea and we should all get on board before it’s too late.
Users like it because it feels more comfortable, natural and useful, and probably quicker too. And in some cases it is actually better. But, it’s important to appreciate how we got here … by the internet becoming shitter, by search engines becoming shitter all in the pursuit of ads revenue and the corresponding tolerance of SEO slop
No, it legitimately is better. Do you know what Google could never do but that Copilot Search and Gemini Search can? Synthesize one answer from multiple different sources.
Sometimes the answer to your question is inherently not on a single page, it’s split across the old framework docs and the new framework docs and stack overflow questions and the best a traditional search engine can ever do is maybe get some of the right pieces in front of you some of the time. LLMs will give you a plain language answer immediately, and let you ask follow up questions and modifications to your original example.
Yes Google has gotten shitty, but it would never have been able to do the above without an LLM under the hood.
Sure, but IME it is very far from doing the things that good, well written and informed human content could do, especially once we’re talking about forums and the like where you can have good conversations with informed people about your problem.
IMO, what ever LLMs are doing that older systems can’t isn’t greater than what was lost with SEO ads-driven slop and shitty search.
Moreover, the business interest of LLM companies is clearly in dominating and controlling (as that’s just capitalism and the “smart” thing to do), which means the retention of the older human-driven system of information sharing and problem solving is vulnerable to being severely threatened and destroyed … while we could just as well enjoy some hybridised system. But because profit is the focus, and the means of making profit problematic, we’re in rough waters which I don’t think can be trusted to create a net positive (and haven’t been trust worthy for decades now).
Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not in the way they do today. Perhaps if you profit from placing ads among results people actually want, you should share revenue with those results. Cause you know, people came to you for those results and they’re the reason you were able to show the ads to people.
Then it sounds like your business is a failure and should be shutdown.
If not, The Pirate Bay would like a word.
I’d love to see how scared some big companies would be if we could decriminalize piracy
I can not up or downvote this (it shows a score of 420 right now 😂)
WHO is the one guy who downvotes you???
“NO! UNPROFITABLE BUSINESSES DESERVE TO THRIVE!!! MUST FEED THE BILLIONAIRES!!!”
Maybe OpenAI learned to downvote…
I’ve seen threads where every single comment, no matter how anodyne, has 1 downvote. Don’t bother yourself over it. That way lies madness.
Downvoting for the use of an uncommon word.
Supercalifragalisticexpialidocuious
Sound was quite atrocious, downvoted 👎
I think people are missing the joke here 😄
Venn diagram of Lemmy users and Mary Poppins stans barely touching.
You spelled it wrong you brick.
You could even say his spelling is quite atrocious
Lmao the down votes on this are really funny to me
What I get a kick out of is the down and upvotes mean basically nothing and yet people still get super sensitive about them. They only move your comment up or down the thread. It’s not like reddit where there is a karma count for all your posts and comments. Hell you don’t even get auto hidden like the way reddit would do. You just get downvoted.
Some people downvote to show disapproval. Others downvote if the comment doesn’t add to the conversation. Still others are just trolling. No one should worry about the downvotes.
See I look at it differently.
An upvote means:
You’re the coolest person that’s ever lived, and I’m desperate for you to put your baby in me, even if that’s not biologically possible! You should be supreme ultimate being of the universe, and all shall cherish your existence until the end of time!
And a downvote means:
You sack of shit! You human garbage! Nobody loves you. Everyone hates you. The world has a better time when you’re not around, you waste of human skin! Your parents should have used a condom, and the world regrets they didn’t every day. Go live under a bridge, homeless, dirty, and alone, you genetic waste of space.
Just imagine baron bomburst and the child catcher furiously downvoting this comment lol
It’s also really easy to mis-swipe on a comment on some apps.
Some people also suck
anodyne
anodyne /ăn′ə-dīn″/ adjective
- Capable of soothing or eliminating pain.
- Relaxing. “anodyne novels about country life.”
- Serving to assuage pain; soothing.
tanks fer noo werd dae fren
First read serving sausage pain.
That sounds like a misusage of a very common word in French: anodin
I’d say a good 10% of English is just misusing words from other languages to be fair.
I always figure it’s someone whose life has become so pathetic, they bitterly downvote every single comment to try feel some control. And as a result, they feel like the Phantom of the Socials. Alone, but the true master of the place.
“Everyone must wonder, ‘Who keeps downvoting us?’ It is I! The true Master of Lemmy and- No, mother!.. Yes, mother!.. I tried but nobody wants to talk to me!.. I don’t want to!.. Yeah, she’s cute!.. I don’t want you to do that!.. Mother put the phone down!”
LOL, I can picture this person. They probably have a gross-looking bandaid on their downvote finger.
Lol how about every pirate who fundamentally opposes the copyright system?
How about everyone who uses Google and doesn’t want to see it shut down for scraping copyrighted content to provide a search engine?
Search engines provide source, they scrap for indexing, but your search gives a list of websites that matches that you will then likely visit. That’s a big fundamental difference.
Google (used to) scrapes the specific details authorized by robots.txt and uses it to make your content visible.
OpenAI scrapes everything it can technically see, ignoring robots.txt and feeds i to a black box and regurgitates it claiming it’s something new, that it deserves to be paid for.
Quite different actually.
So if OpenAI complies with Robots.txt files then there’s no issue right?
Because then they’re identical. Open AI spent a bunch of money building a powerful system they feed those results to, as did Google.
No, the issue is that anything AI creates is by definition derivative. Google doesn’t whip up generative content, it points you to content.
OpenAI is claiming that they can’t do shit without scraping copyrighted works and we all know that’s a load of BS because we’re adrift in a sea of royalty-free text
Actually Google tries their hardest NOT to point you to content. They scrape the data from sites and display it directly in the search results so that you don’t need to visit any site except Google. Their new AI answers that they are pushing on users are just another step in that direction.
Which is why Google is no longer my default browser. I’d be quite happy if it reverted Back to don’t be evil or just ceased ro exist
Literally every page Google shows you, where it also shows you those ads it makes money from, is Google’s content and it is derived from the data it gets scraping the web.
No, anything Google shows you is kosher and totally symbiotic. A website being shown on Google is at the site owner’s discretion - if they allow search engines to crawl they get the benefit of exposure, and the search engine gets the benefit of having relevant hits and ad revenue and all that.
Google isn’t exploiting anyone, kinda the opposite, since site owners don’t pay for any ads or exposure (but that exposure has so much value that they’ll pay for SEO). Site owners can decline and Google abides
What the fuck are you even talking about? Making a list of website identifiers (names and URLs) so that people can go to them isn’t even slightly the same as making a derived work of the websites’ contents.
I dont see why why being downvoted you make some very good points.
Id actually like to see google shut down on copyright grounds. The innovation of necessity would drive foss search alternatives that just ignore said restrictions and most likly we would end up with a better product.
I appreciate the defense of the blind downvotes, though I can’t say I necessarily see how Foss search engines would even be allowed to exist in that case?
There is a difference between allowed and what people do. Piracy isnt allowed u can still pirate literally anything if u want to tho.
You’d probably end up back with AI at that point. A lot easier to distribute a trained model then an entire web index.
Yep but at least the weights would be free
Google doesn’t sell the search engine as a product.
Yes they do, just indirectly, it’s how they monopolized the online advertising business.
Web search used to be about scraping the web to find and present other people’s work as just that… their work. Now the handful of websites claim ownership of the contributions of everyone, and at this point it’s just corporations arguing about who owns your stuff. Pirates will not win out in this argument, except maybe in the very short term.
To steel man the downvoters, maybe there are other solutions besides killing off every business that can’t afford to comply with copyright. After all, isn’t the whole point of copyright to enable the capitalist exploitation of information?
WHO is the one guy who downvotes you???
That’s the bot that ChatGPT operates here on Lemmy.
The guy who wants their AI girlfriend yesterday.
Ask an mbin user lol
I’m unclear on context. Are you saying Mbin users can see who upvotes/downvotes?
Votes aren’t private on the fediverse, it’s just a that some interfaces won’t display them. Also, instance admins can see who voted too.
But like @Boozilla@lemmy.world said
Don’t bother yourself over it. That way lies madness.
It mainly useful for admins to detect if there is some vote manipulation going on.
Sam Altman lurking around…
There are some hardcore “copyright shouldn’t exist” folks out there.
well fuck you Sam Altman
And my money redistribution company can not get money to redistribute without robbing banks. Please put up your hands. 🔫🥷
As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.
You can certainly argue that “downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training” should be treated differently from “downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder”, but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.
Personally, I think it’s a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can’t copy it and share the copy with others.
Aww poor shit company and their poor money problems.
Oh how quick people are to jump on the side of copyright and IP.
Yeah, a decision to modify copyright so that it affects training data as well would devastate open source models and set us back a bit.
There are many that want to push LLMs back, especially journalists, so seeing articles like this are to be expected.
edit: a word.
Exactly this. If you want ai to exclusively be controlled by massive companies like Meta and Google, this is how you do it. They’ll be the only ones that can afford to pay for public copywritten content.
Copyright is the legal method to limit redistribution of easily copied material, not as if there’s anything else people could appeal to.
I ain’t a fan of copyright but make it last 10 years instead of X + infinity and maybe it’s not so bad. I can’t argue against copyright fully as I think copyleft is essential for software.
But those aren’t the options on the table right now. The options are “nullify copyright” or “keep infinite copyright”
I activate false dichotomy and flip the table.
