Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
Facebook is claiming its use of copyrighted works for training was fair use.
Yeah, teens downloading Metallica albums off Napster twenty years ago to listen in their parent’s basement was a serious crime, but Big Corp Inc. feeding books to the copyright erasing machine is somehow fair use. The gall.
Erasing? It ain't erasing anything.
Functionally erasing the author’s copyright, is the issue.
Are there court decisions on that I've missed or something? As soon as it reproduces enough to prove it's a derivative work, game over.
You can let gemini to reproduce the lyrics from "if you wanna be my lover" verbatim if you ask about it. There's not a court decision yet but anthropic is being sued for that reason (now a heavy bias forbids that)
Then I have no idea why would anyone think it's erasing copyright. Or that it needs to be regulated. The laws are there, just apply them.
You can get people to do that
Yes, and? AI is not a person, and is not even remotely comparable to a person.
I can spout off unrelated and not relevant things as well! Hippo sweat is red and looks somewhat like blood!
posting here isn’t working out for you
Facebook is at least releasing their models to the public. I have less of a problem with them than companies like OpenAI and Google that don't even pretend to be open. And neither should be a crime, information should be free for the betterment of humanity.
here’s some interesting context on the class action:
They wanted an expert who would state that 3D models aren't worth anything because they are so easy to make. Evidently Shmeta and an ivy league school we will call "Schmarvard" had scraped data illegally from a certain company's online library and used it to to train their AI...
this fucking bizarro “your work is worthless so no we won’t stop using it” routine is something I keep seeing from both the companies involved in generative AI and their defenders. earlier on it was the claim that human creativity didn’t exist or was exhausted sometime in the glorious past, which got Altman & Co called fascists and made it hard for them to pretend they don’t hate artists. now the idea is that somehow the existence of easy creative work means that creative work in general (whether easy or hard) has no value and can be freely stolen (by corporations only, it’s still a crime when we do it).
not that we need it around here, but consider this a reminder to never use generative AI anywhere in your creative workflow. not only is it trained using stolen work, but making a generative AI element part of your work proves to these companies that your work was created “easily” (in spite of all proof to the contrary) and itself deserves to be stolen.
It’s not only not a crime when corporations steal, it’s a crime only when you steal from corporations! If I steal from an individual artist or very small label, no one will even so much as complain.