• DrCake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    223
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    So when’s the ruling against OpenAI and the like using the same copyrighted material to train their models

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      But OpenAI not being allowed to use the content for free means they are being prevented from making a profit, whereas the Internet Archive is giving away the stuff for free and taking away the right of the authors to profit. /s

      Disclaimer: this is the argument that OpenAI is using currently, not my opinion.

    • norimee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Ah, I see you got that all wrong.

      Open IA AI uses that content to generate billions in profit on the backs of The People. The Internet Archive just does it for the good of The People.

      We can’t have that. “Good for The People” is not how the economy works, pal. We need profit and exploitation for the world to work…

        • Agret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sounds like they are operating the same as all the other big tech companies then

          • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Eh? That article says nothing about their profit margins. Today they have something like $3.5B in ARR (not really, that’s annualized from their latest peak, in Feb they had like $2B ARR). Meanwhile they have operating costs over $7B. Meaning they are losing money hand over fist and not making a profit.

            I’m not suggesting anything else, just that they are not profitable and personally I don’t see a road to profitability beyond subsidizing themselves with investment.

            • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s in the first bloody paragraph. 😮‍💨

              OpenAI is begging the British Parliament to allow it to use copyrighted works because it’s supposedly “impossible” for the company to train its artificial intelligence models — and continue growing its multi-billion-dollar business — without them.

              And if you follow the link the title of the article says it all:

              #OpenAI is set to see its valuation at $80 billion—making it the third most valuable startup in the world

              • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I take it you don’t understand how startups work?

                OpenAI is not making any profit and is losing money hand over fist today. Valuation and raising investment rounds isn’t profit.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think you accidentally swapped OpenAI and Open IA which happens to initialize Internet Archive, a little confusing.

      • shrugs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        So, let’s say we create an llm that will be fed will all the copyrighted data and we design it, so that it recalls the originals when asked?! Does that count as piracy or as the kind of legal shananigans openai is doing?

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The matter is not LLMs reproducing what they have learned, it is that they didn’t pay for the books they read, like people are supposed to do legally.

        This is not about free use, this is about free access, which at the scale of an individual reading books is marketed as “piracy”…at the scale of reading all books known to man…it’s onmipiracy?

        We need some kind of deal where commercial LLMs have to pay a rent to a fund that distributes that among creators or remain nonprofit, which is never gonnna happen, because it’ll be a bummer for all the grifters rushing into that industry.

        • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think we need to re-examine what copyright should be. There’s nothing inherently immoral about “piracy” when the original creator gets almost nothing for their work after the initial release.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          it is that they didn’t pay for the books they read, like people are supposed to do legally.

          If I can read a book from a library, why shouldn’t OpenAI or anybody else?

          …but yes from what I’ve heard they (or whoever, don’t remember) actually trained on libgen. OpenAI can be scummy without the general process of feeding AI books you only have read access to being scummy.