How exactly does this benefit “us” ?
Comment on Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books
Grimy@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
80% of the book market is owned by 5 publishing houses.
They want to create a monopoly around AI and kill open source. The copyright industry is not our friend. This is a win, not a loss.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Because books are used to train both commercial and open source language models?
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
used to train both commercial
commercial training is, in this case, stealing people’s work for commercial gain
and open source language models
so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There’s so much of it that there’s no need to steal.
?
I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
I was questioning whether or not you would see that as a benefit. Clearly you don’t.
Are you also against libraries letting people borrow books since those are also lost sales for the authors, or are you just a luddite?
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 14 hours ago
Keep in mind this isn't about open-weight vs other AI models at all. This is about how training data can be collected and used.
bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
If you aren’t allowed to freely use data for training without a license, then the fear is that only large companies will own enough works or be able to afford licenses to train models.
Nomad_Scry@lemmy.sdf.org 14 hours ago
If they can just steal a creator’s work, how do they suppose creators will be able to afford continuing to be creators?
Right. They think we have enough original works that the machines can just make any new creations.
😠
bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Yeah, I guess the debate is which is the lesser evil. I didn’t make the original comment but I think this is what they were getting at.
Grimy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The companies like record studio who already own all the copyrights aren’t going to pay creators for something they already owned.
All the data has already been signed away. People are really optimistic about an industry that has consistently fucked everyone they interact with for money.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 13 hours ago
Yes. But then do something about it. Regulate the market. Or pass laws which address this. I don't really see why we should do something like this, then, it still kind of contributes to the problem as free reign still advantages big companies.
Grimy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Because of the vast amount of data needed, there will be no competitive viable open source solution if half the data is kept in a walled garden.
This is about open weights vs closed weights.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
They haven’t dewalled the garden yet. The copyright infringement part of the case will continue.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 7 hours ago
I agree that we need open-source and emancipate ourselves. The main issue I see is: The entire approach doesn't work. I'd like to give the internet as an example. It's meant to be very open, connect everyone and enable them to share information freely. It is set up to be a level playing field... Now look what that leads to. Trillion dollar mega-corporations, privacy issues everywhere and big data silos. That's what the approach promotes. I agree with the goal. But in my opinion the approach will turn out to lead to less open source and more control by rich companies.
Grimy@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
A lot ofnour laws are indeed obsolete. I think the best solution would be to force copy left licenses on anything using public created data.
But I’ll take the wild west we have now with no walls then any kind of copyright dystopia. Reddit did successfully sell it’s data to Google for 60 million. Right now, you can legally scrape anything you want off reddit, it is an open garden in every sense of the word (even if they dont like it). It’s a lot more legal then using pirated books, but Google still bet 60 million that copyright laws would swing broadly in their favor.
I think it’s very foolhardy to even hint at a pro copyright stance right now. There is a very real chance of AI getting monopolized and this is how they will do it.
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Cool than, try to do some torrenting out there and don’t hide that. Tell us how it goes
OmegaMouse@pawb.social 14 hours ago
What, how is this a win? Three authors lost a lawsuit to an AI firm using their works.
Grimy@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
The lawsuit would not have benefitted their fellow authors but their publishing houses and the big ai companies.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I would harm the A.I. industry if Anthropic loses the next part of the trial on whether they pirated books — from what I’ve read, Anthropic and Meta are suspected of getting a lot off torrent sites and the like.
It’s possible they all did some piracy in their mad dash to find training material but Amazon and Google have bookstores and Google even has a book text search engine, Google Scholar, and probably everything else already in its data centers. So, not sure why they’d have to resort to piracy.