Technology

37720 readers

41 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

265

OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by sculd to c/technology

252 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frog 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Personally I think the claim that the entire contents of ArtStation will lead to working technology that fixes climate change is the bolder claim - and if there was any merit to it, there would be some evidence for it that the corporations who want copyright to be disapplied to artists would be able to produce. And if we're saying that getting rid of copyright protections will save the planet, then perhaps Disney should give up theirs as well. Because that's the reality here: we're expecting humans to be obliterated by AI but are not expecting the rich and powerful to make any sacrifices at all. And art is part of who we are as a species, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Replacing artists with AI because somehow that will fix climate change is not only a massive stretch, but what would we even be saving humanity for at that point? So that everybody can slave away in insecure, meaningless work so the few can hoard everything for themselves? Because the Star Trek utopia where AI does all the work and humans can pursue self-enrichment is not an option on the table. The tech bros just want you to think it is.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the claim that the entire contents of ArtStation will lead to working technology that fixes climate change is the bolder claim

That's fair, and why I didn't make that claim. What I said was, claiming the opposite is also bold.

there would be some evidence for it that the corporations who want copyright to be disapplied to artists would be able to produce

I don't think it's in the corporation's best interest to solve climate change, though. At least, not in the near term. Their interests are always self-serving. But that doesn't mean the technology they produce going forward isn't our best shot at survival.

And if we're saying that getting rid of copyright protections will save the planet

Which we're not....

then perhaps Disney should give up theirs as well

Ok. Fine with me.

we're expecting humans to be obliterated by AI but are not expecting the rich and powerful to make any sacrifices at all

Eh, so far in this discussion we had not agreed on the former. Maybe you meant "if we assume...why are we not..."? And I would say, we don't need AI to kill us all for me to agree that the rich and powerful should be forced to contribute a fair share to society by society.

And art is part of who we are as a species, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Replacing artists with AI...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're implying that what AI produces is not art. If so, then I don't think there's any risk of AI replacing art. If art is important to humans, then we will still create it and appreciate it. It's like when humans invented fast food: if it's not giving us the nutrients we need, we won't be able to survive off of it regardless of how prevalent it becomes.

but what would we even be saving humanity for at that point? So that everybody can slave away in insecure, meaningless work so the few can hoard everything for themselves?

This is one of those loaded "what is my purpose in life" questions. There's no reason to save humanity at all. There's no reason we exist to begin with. The cynical "we're a bunch of monkeys fighting for resources on a forgotten ball flying through emptiness" take could have been made at any point in human history, we didn't need AI to take over.

the Star Trek utopia where AI does all the work and humans can pursue self-enrichment is not an option on the table.

Strong claim.

The tech bros just want you to think it is.

Agree.

I feel like you are prone to false dichotomies. Just thought I'd point it out.

[–] frog 1 points 10 months ago

My point, ultimately, is that the AI companies would have a stronger claim to fair use of artistic works if they could point to an end use-case that is good for humanity as a whole, to the point that it offsets the massive loss to and of artists. Because right now, the entirety of their claim to the complete contents of ArtStation appears to amount to nothing more than "trollface we want to make tons of money!" And that is not a good enough reason to render copyright law meaningless when it relates to individual artists but not corporations.