• Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    230
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah! I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay for the ingredients, so I should be allowed to steal them. How else can I make money??

    Alternatively:

    OpenAI is no different from pirate streaming sites in this regard (loosely: streaming sites are way more useful to humanity). If OpenAI gets a pass, so should every site that’s been shut down for piracy.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      If OpenAI wants a pass, then just like how piracy services make content freely open and available, they should make their models open.

      Give me the weights, publish your datasets, slap on a permissive license.

      If you’re not willing to contribute back to society with what you used from it, then you shouldn’t exist within society until you do so.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Generative AI is not going back into the bag. If not OpenAI, then someone else will control it. So we deal with them the next best way, force them to serve us, the people.

          • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            1 month ago

            Then they can either pay for the copyrighted data they want to train on or lobby for copyright to be reigned in for everyone. Right now, they’re acting like entitled twats with a shit business model demanding they get a free pass while the rest of us would be bankrupted for downloading a Metallica MP3.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              I think this better solves the issue.

              The problem isn’t necessarily the use of copyrighted works, (although it can be a problem in many ways) it’s the unfair legal determination of who is allowed to do so.

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nobody should profit from copyright violation. Yes, copyright law needs to change, but making money isn’t an exception

    • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is actually a very good comparison because restaurants use this argument all the time, except for wages:

      “I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay a living wage to my servers, so you should pay them with tips. How else can we stay open?”

      These business that can’t operate profitably like any other business should fail.

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        In China, tipping is considered insulting because you are implying exactly that: that they are incapable of running their business without your donation.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 month ago

      K, so Google should be shut down too?

      They can’t operate without scraping copyrighted data.

      • MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        This is a false equivalency.

        Google used to act as a directory for the internet along with other web search services. In court, they argued that the content they scrapped wasn’t easily accessible through the searches alone and had statistical proof that the search engine was helping bring people to more websites, not preventing them from going. At the time, they were right. This was the “good” era of Google, a different time period and company entirely.

        Since then, Google has parsed even more data, made that data easily available in the google search results pages directly (avoiding link click-throughs), increased the number of services they provide to the degree that they have a conflict of interest on the data they collect and a vested interest in keeping people “on google” and off the other parts of the web, and participated in the same bullshit policies that OpenAI started with their Gemini project. Whatever win they had in the 2000s against book publishers, it could be argued that the rights they were “afforded” back in those days were contingent on them being good-faith participants and not competitors. OpenAI and “summary” models that fail to reference sources with direct links, make hugely inaccurate statements, and generate “infinite content” by mashing together letters in the worlds most complicated markov chain fit in this category.

        It turns out, if you’re afforded the rights to something on a technicality, it’s actually pretty dumb to become brazen and assume that you can push these rights to the breaking point.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Google (and search engines in general) is at least providing a service by indexing and making discoverable the websites they crawl. OpenAI is is just hoovering up the data and providing nothing in return. Socializing the cost, privatizing the profits.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Uh, that’s objectively false.

          OoenAI also provides ChatGPT as a “free” service, and Google has made billions off of that “free” service they oh so altruistically provide you.

          • teft@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Google points to your content so others can find it.

            OpenAI scrapes your content to use to make more content.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s not a meaningful distinction, I spent all day using a Copilot search engine because the answers I wanted were scattered across a bunch of different documentation sites.

              It was both using the AI models to interpret my commands (not generation at all), and then only publishes content to me specifically.

              • teft@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m talking about the training phase of LLMs.that is the portion that is doing the scraping and generation of copy written data.

                You using an already trained LLM to do some searches is not the same thing.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Depends on what the function was. If the function was to drive ad revenue to your site, then sure, if the function was to get information into the public, then it’s not replacing the function so much as altering and updating it.

                  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    If that “altering and updating” means people don’t need to read the original anymore, then it’s not fair use.

                    TBH I’m for reigning in copyright substantially, and would be on the shitty text generator company side of this, but only if it makes a precedent and erodes copyright as a whole instead of just creating a carveout if you have a lot of moeny for lawyers.