I’m okay with it if they do some kind of open source GPL style license for the copyrighted material, like you can use all the material in the world to train your model, but you can’t sell your model for money if it was trained on copyrighted material.
To clarify, you can sell GPL licensed programs but any GPL licensed software us inherently worth 0$, because the first person that buys it is now able to give it away for free.
Donation, patronage, gift economy, mutual aid, or whatever you want to call it is fine by me. People can pirate a lot of proprietary software as well, yet people still pay.
Piracy has clear downsides with proprietary software in most cases. Lack of updates and support are big ones. Also its considered moral to pay for your software.
If that happens, no point making anything, since your stuff will get stolen anyway
From a capitalist’s point of view, yes, but we need a society that enables people to act from other incentives than making money. And there are plenty of other reasons to make things.
Pay me upfront to make it, subscribe to my patron. If you need my intellectual property to be guaranteed then pay me for a SLA support contract.
Otherwise everything I make is out some other interest and your benifit is just an unintended consequence or because of some charitable notion on my part.
Its crazy how much of the world is actually just this and not some nebulas notion on artificial scarcity of the idea of the things (IP).
Trademark would arguably be uneffected though since that has more to do with fraud protections.
If openai gets to use copyrighted content for free, then so should every one else.
If that happens, no point making anything, since your stuff will get stolen anyway
I’m okay with it if they do some kind of open source GPL style license for the copyrighted material, like you can use all the material in the world to train your model, but you can’t sell your model for money if it was trained on copyrighted material.
You absolutely CAN sell GPL-licensed applications for money.
To clarify, you can sell GPL licensed programs but any GPL licensed software us inherently worth 0$, because the first person that buys it is now able to give it away for free.
Yet, people still pay for it.
An optional fee is a donation.
Donation, patronage, gift economy, mutual aid, or whatever you want to call it is fine by me. People can pirate a lot of proprietary software as well, yet people still pay.
Piracy has clear downsides with proprietary software in most cases. Lack of updates and support are big ones. Also its considered moral to pay for your software.
These same arguments are equally true for GPL software.
From a capitalist’s point of view, yes, but we need a society that enables people to act from other incentives than making money. And there are plenty of other reasons to make things.
AI is the capitalist dream. Exploit the labor and creativity of others without paying them a cent.
Everyone else does. Name one thing you have to pay for to view on the internet…lmfao
Pay me upfront to make it, subscribe to my patron. If you need my intellectual property to be guaranteed then pay me for a SLA support contract.
Otherwise everything I make is out some other interest and your benifit is just an unintended consequence or because of some charitable notion on my part.
Its crazy how much of the world is actually just this and not some nebulas notion on artificial scarcity of the idea of the things (IP).
Trademark would arguably be uneffected though since that has more to do with fraud protections.