168
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
168 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59066 readers
4390 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Except that’s not true, public posting of content does not trump copyright protection. Google using content for AI purposes is almost certainly a copyright issue. I may post content for human consumption but that does not mean I allow it to be used by a private corporation for profit purposes
Can we please not empower copyright to such silly extent? Copyright is already utter garbage and some want to extend to tweets, comments and whatnot.
Also, AI is copying the same way we copy everything - by learning. So we shouldn't be allowed to quote and refer to stuff we learn about online? In no way this argument makes sense - down with the copyright.
That’s not empowering copyright. That’s literally how it works. Copyright is automatic, and if you do not have a prior agreement assigning copyright it is awarded to the person who created said content, be it a tweet, blog post, etc.
If I make a blog post and google scrapes the data and uses that day for profit, that’s copyright infringement, unless they can prove fair use, which has narrow definitions that training an AI for profit purposes definitely doesn’t fall under
I dread reality you're describing where every bit of information is propriatory. I think the world is a better place with free information. What you're describing sounds whole lot like throwing the baby out with the bath water - just because big tech corporations are "bad".
I mean you can dread it all you want, because that is LITERALLY how it works today. Google, OpenAI and Microsoft already have multiple lawsuits for stealing people’s copyrights to train their LLMs.
Copyright is assigned automatically. If I make a blog post, that is automatically my copyrighted material. As the creator I get to choose how it’s used, not Google
If I took some proprietary Google code and used it without permission you know damn well they would sue my ass into oblivion. Copyright has to protect the small as well as the giant.
I don't think you understand.
Let's imagine everything is copyrighted. Who will be able to create LLMs now? Google/Meta who can afford to literally hire thousands of people on below minimum wage creating annotations or smaller companies and free projects? You are literally empowering the thing you're complaining about.
Public data is public and that's good for general balance. It removed the moats.
I don’t think you understand? You’re talking about some “information must be free Star Trek future” that doesn’t exist. I’m talking about the exact legal framework that exists today.
If I write a short story somewhere, why the fuck should someone be able to profit off of it because they pointed a bot at my site? How do you prevent giant corps from eventually squashing and owning everything?
Just because something is publicly accessible doesn’t mean it’s public. I would maybe start here
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect
If Google or Meta wants to make an LLM off my content, they can fucking have the decency to ask or pound sand. Adding a clause to some policy somewhere doesn’t auto-magically remove my legal rights
it's a two way street - if you want to benefit from the free flow of information (your story being public) you should also bear the costs. I feel we've reached the end of this thread so lets just agree to disagree. Maybe my distaste for copyrighting information is too great here for you to convince me otherwise :)