BURN @ BURN @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

1,317

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s theft.

You can steal all you want, but it’s still theft. Piracy is theft, stealing data to be used as training data is theft.

Not everyone wants their creations to be infinitely shared beyond their control. If someone creates something, they’re entitled to absolute control over it.

Honestly, yes. I’m ok with that. People are not entitled to be able to do anything they want with someone else’s IP. 90 years is almost reasonable. Cut it in half and I’d also consider it fairly reasonable.

I’m all for expanding copyright for individuals and small companies (small media companies, photographers who are incorporated, artists who make money based on commissions, etc) and reducing it for mega corps, but there’s an extremely fine line around that.

They’re screwed less than they would be if copyright was abolished. It’s not a perfect system by far, but over restrictive is 100x better than an open system of stealing from others.

They protect artists AND protect corporations, and you can’t have one without the other. It’s much better the way it is compared to no copyright at all.

It’s near impossible to switch to airbus if an airline is preset entrenched in Boeing. You have to retrain everyone from ground crews to pilots to FAs to maintenance. On top of that you need new suppliers for spare parts, maintenance hubs and contracts.

Also supply is a major issue. Both Airbus and Boeing are back ordered for years, so there isn’t a way to easily switch fleets.

Again, I literally already said that it’s a problem.

IP law is also different than granting rights to corporations. Corporations SHOULD be allowed to own IP, provided they’ve compensated the creator.

That’s exactly what they’re saying. The AI proponents believe that copyright shouldn’t be respected and they should be able to ignore any licensing because “it’s hard to find data otherwise”

Too bad

If you can’t afford to pay the authors of the data required for your project to work, then that sucks for you, but doesn’t give you the right to take anything you want and violate copyright.

Making a data agnostic model and releasing the source is fine, but a released, trained model owes royalties to its training data.

That’s all that cars have become. It’s great for anyone who doesn’t like driving, it sucks for anyone who enjoys it

It’s so ugly

I’m sure I’ll see a ton of them, but they’re horrible looking

Corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such.

If a company does something illegal, the penalty should be spread to the board. It’d make them think twice about breaking the law.

We should not be awarding human rights to non-human, non-sentient creations. LLMs and any kind of Generative AI are not human and should not in any case be treated as such.

That’s an entirely separate problem, but is certainly a problem

People do not consume and process data the same way an AI model does. Therefore it doesn’t matter about how humans learn, because AIs don’t learn. This isn’t repurposing work, it’s using work in a way the copyright holder doesn’t allow, just like copyright holders are allowed to prohibit commercial use.

Copyright violations is stealing

Yes it is. Moralize it all you want, but it’s still theft

Copying copyright protected data is theft AND stealing

Edit: this also applies to my stance on piracy, which I don’t engage in for the same reason. It’s theft

Ok and?

That doesn’t mean it’s any less theft, or that you have any idea what you’re talking about.

https://www.rws.com/blog/large-language-models-humans/

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rjghymycfrMY2aRk5/llm-cognition-is-probably-not-human-like

There’s also countless papers on google scholar that point out the differences.

I could say the same about you, considering I’ve watched you peddle false information for months about this subject.

AI learns differently than humans. That isn’t a fact up for debate. That’s one of the few objective truths around this industry.

Backed by technical facts.

AIs fundamentally process information differently than humans. That’s not up for debate.

That does nothing to solve the problem of data being used without consent to train the models. It doesn’t matter if the model is FOSS if it stole all the data it trained on.