Comment on Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim

• Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Stifling a writing tool because GRRM wants a payday, on the basis that it can spit out small parts of his work if you specifically ask it too, is the opposite of advancing the art.

  …yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works. Its literally the rest of the statement you put in bold, stop trying not to see on purpose.

  source

  • LWD@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Stifling a writing tool

    OpenAI is a corporation

    GRRM wants a payday

    I already mentioned that poor authors cannot stand up to thieving corpos like OpenAI. Maybe address the argument, not your strawman.

    GRRM has been relatively handwavey about piracy of the movie adaptations of his books, so I’m not sure why you’re acting like he’s evil but somehow giant corporations get the pass from you.

    stop trying not to see…

    Just because Womble speaks in absolutes doesn’t mean everybody else does. There are already exceptions in American copyright law, advocating for slightly different exceptions is not the same as eliminating it.

    source

    • Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m clearly talking about the technology when I say tool (large language models) and not the company itself.

      If we can’t freely use copyrighted material to train, it completely and unequivocally kills any kind of open source or even small to medium model. Only a handful of companies have enough data or funds to build these. And since AI will be able to do virtually all desk jobs in the near future, it would guarantee Microsoft and Google owning the economy.

      So no, I’m not taking the sides of the corporation. The corporations want more barriers and more laws, it kills competition and broadens their moat.

      I don’t think GRRM is evil, just a greedy asshole that’s willingly playing into their hand. I also don’t think loss of potential profit because the domain has been made even more competitive equals stealing. Nothing was stolen, the barrier for entry has been lowered.

      This isn’t helping anyone except big name author, the owners of publishing houses and Microsoft. The small time authors and artist arent getting a dime. Why should literally the rest of us get screwed so a couple of fat cats can have an other payday?

      source

      • LWD@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m clearly talking about the technology when I say tool (large language models) and not the company itself.

        Didn’t you notice you’re on a post about Microsoft Corp and OpenAI Corp? Maybe you ended up in the wrong place by accident.

        If we can’t freely use copyrighted material to train, it completely and unequivocally kills any kind of open source or even small to medium model.

        Ah, the typical Big Business conservative argument: “think about the business owner… The small business owner!” Always forgetting to add the word “small” until the last possible second.

        And, for some reason, only jumping into converse when you must, by necessity, harm much smaller creators in the process. I guess that plays into a second conservative argument, maximizing harm per capita.

        Why not simply ask for consent, instead of demanding it as an alleged right?

        If someone knows that upon creation of something, it will simply be stolen, that tells them not to create. That’s the foundation upon which copyright law was made, despite the misinformation peddled here by anti-artist ideologues.

        source