Then it sounds like your business is a failure and should be shutdown.
WHO is the one guy who downvotes you???
“NO! UNPROFITABLE BUSINESSES DESERVE TO THRIVE!!! MUST FEED THE BILLIONAIRES!!!”
Maybe OpenAI learned to downvote…
I’ve seen threads where every single comment, no matter how anodyne, has 1 downvote. Don’t bother yourself over it. That way lies madness.
Downvoting for the use of an uncommon word.
Supercalifragalisticexpialidocuious
Edit: 10 people here didn’t grow up with Mary Poppins…
You spelled it wrong you brick.
You could even say his spelling is quite atrocious
Lmao the down votes on this are really funny to me
Just imagine baron bomburst and the child catcher furiously downvoting this comment lol
What I get a kick out of is the down and upvotes mean basically nothing and yet people still get super sensitive about them. They only move your comment up or down the thread. It’s not like reddit where there is a karma count for all your posts and comments. Hell you don’t even get auto hidden like the way reddit would do. You just get downvoted.
Some people downvote to show disapproval. Others downvote if the comment doesn’t add to the conversation. Still others are just trolling. No one should worry about the downvotes.
See I look at it differently.
An upvote means:
You’re the coolest person that’s ever lived, and I’m desperate for you to put your baby in me, even if that’s not biologically possible! You should be supreme ultimate being of the universe, and all shall cherish your existence until the end of time!
And a downvote means:
You sack of shit! You human garbage! Nobody loves you. Everyone hates you. The world has a better time when you’re not around, you waste of human skin! Your parents should have used a condom, and the world regrets they didn’t every day. Go live under a bridge, homeless, dirty, and alone, you genetic waste of space.
Sound was quite atrocious, downvoted 👎
I think people are missing the joke here 😄
Venn diagram of Lemmy users and Mary Poppins stans barely touching.
anodyne
anodyne /ăn′ə-dīn″/ adjective
- Capable of soothing or eliminating pain.
- Relaxing. “anodyne novels about country life.”
- Serving to assuage pain; soothing.
tanks fer noo werd dae fren
First read serving sausage pain.
That sounds like a misusage of a very common word in French: anodin
I’d say a good 10% of English is just misusing words from other languages to be fair.
It’s also really easy to mis-swipe on a comment on some apps.
Some people also suck
I always figure it’s someone whose life has become so pathetic, they bitterly downvote every single comment to try feel some control. And as a result, they feel like the Phantom of the Socials. Alone, but the true master of the place.
“Everyone must wonder, ‘Who keeps downvoting us?’ It is I! The true Master of Lemmy and- No, mother!.. Yes, mother!.. I tried but nobody wants to talk to me!.. I don’t want to!.. Yeah, she’s cute!.. I don’t want you to do that!.. Mother put the phone down!”
LOL, I can picture this person. They probably have a gross-looking bandaid on their downvote finger.
There are some hardcore “copyright shouldn’t exist” folks out there.
The guy who wants their AI girlfriend yesterday.
WHO is the one guy who downvotes you???
That’s the bot that ChatGPT operates here on Lemmy.
Ask an mbin user lol
I’m unclear on context. Are you saying Mbin users can see who upvotes/downvotes?
Votes aren’t private on the fediverse, it’s just a that some interfaces won’t display them. Also, instance admins can see who voted too.
But like @Boozilla@lemmy.world said
Don’t bother yourself over it. That way lies madness.
It mainly useful for admins to detect if there is some vote manipulation going on.
To steel man the downvoters, maybe there are other solutions besides killing off every business that can’t afford to comply with copyright. After all, isn’t the whole point of copyright to enable the capitalist exploitation of information?
Sam Altman lurking around…
Lol how about every pirate who fundamentally opposes the copyright system?
How about everyone who uses Google and doesn’t want to see it shut down for scraping copyrighted content to provide a search engine?
Seriously, explain to me what’s different at a fundamental level about OpenAI scraping the web and transforming the data through an LLM and Google scraping the web and transforming the data through their algorithms (which include LLMs)?
Google (used to) scrapes the specific details authorized by robots.txt and uses it to make your content visible.
OpenAI scrapes everything it can technically see, ignoring robots.txt and feeds i to a black box and regurgitates it claiming it’s something new, that it deserves to be paid for.
Quite different actually.
So if OpenAI complies with Robots.txt files then there’s no issue right?
Because then they’re identical. Open AI spent a bunch of money building a powerful system they feed those results to, as did Google.
deleted by creator
Actually Google tries their hardest NOT to point you to content. They scrape the data from sites and display it directly in the search results so that you don’t need to visit any site except Google. Their new AI answers that they are pushing on users are just another step in that direction.
Which is why Google is no longer my default browser. I’d be quite happy if it reverted Back to don’t be evil or just ceased ro exist
Literally every page Google shows you, where it also shows you those ads it makes money from, is Google’s content and it is derived from the data it gets scraping the web.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Making a list of website identifiers (names and URLs) so that people can go to them isn’t even slightly the same as making a derived work of the websites’ contents.
deleted by creator
Web search used to be about scraping the web to find and present other people’s work as just that… their work. Now the handful of websites claim ownership of the contributions of everyone, and at this point it’s just corporations arguing about who owns your stuff. Pirates will not win out in this argument, except maybe in the very short term.
Search engines provide source, they scrap for indexing, but your search gives a list of websites that matches that you will then likely visit. That’s a big fundamental difference.
Google doesn’t sell the search engine as a product.
Yes they do, just indirectly, it’s how they monopolized the online advertising business.
I dont see why why being downvoted you make some very good points.
Id actually like to see google shut down on copyright grounds. The innovation of necessity would drive foss search alternatives that just ignore said restrictions and most likly we would end up with a better product.
I appreciate the defense of the blind downvotes, though I can’t say I necessarily see how Foss search engines would even be allowed to exist in that case?
There is a difference between allowed and what people do. Piracy isnt allowed u can still pirate literally anything if u want to tho.
You’d probably end up back with AI at that point. A lot easier to distribute a trained model then an entire web index.
Yep but at least the weights would be free
If not, The Pirate Bay would like a word.
I’d love to see how scared some big companies would be if we could decriminalize piracy
deleted by creator
Honestly this meme is way understating the sinisterness
- Election interference for money machine
- Whole internet is ads company
- Dopamine addiction for all children
- Superpowers for law enforcement
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.
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.
Piracy steals from the rich and gives to the poor. ChatGPT steals from the rich and the poor and keeps for itself.
and keeps for itself.
Which is why they should be legally compelled to publicize all of their datasets, models, research, and share any profits they’ve made with the works they can get provenance data for, because otherwise, it’s an unfair use of the public sphere of content.
One could very easily argue that adblockers are piracy, and those would be stealing from every social media creator, small blog, and independent news site, but I don’t see many people arguing against that, even though that very well includes people who aren’t wealthy corporations.
The issue isn’t necessarily the use of the copyrighted content, it’s the unfair legal stance taken on who can use the content, and how they are allowed to profit (or not profit) from it.
I’m not saying there are no downsides, but I do feel like a simple black and white dichotomy doesn’t properly outline how piracy and generative AI training are relatively similar in terms of who they steal from, and it’s more of a matter of what is done with the content after it is taken that truly matters most.
No they shouldn’t. They should cease to exist
Good luck putting the cat back in the bag.
I have cats. Putting them back in a bag or box is easier
Well if everyone who’s copyrighted work independently sues OpenAI, that cat will be deceased real quick due to bankruptcy
Fuck copyright they used gplv3 code why isnt it open source
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.
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.
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.
Nobody should profit from copyright violation. Yes, copyright law needs to change, but making money isn’t an exception
Generative AI is not going back into the bag.
It probably will, though, once model collapse sets in.
That’s the irony, really… the more successful it is, the sooner it’ll poison itself to death.
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.
In China, tipping is considered insulting because you are implying exactly that: that they are incapable of running their business without your donation.
K, so Google should be shut down too?
They can’t operate without scraping copyrighted data.
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.
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.
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.
Google points to your content so others can find it.
OpenAI scrapes your content to use to make more content.
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.
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.
Technically it is meaningful, fair use is for specifically things that don’t replace the original in function.
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.
It’s absolutely a meaningful distinction. Search engines push people to tour website where you can capitalize on your audience however you see fit. LLM’s take your content, through them through the mixer and sell it back to people. It’s the difference between a movie reviewer explaining a movie and a dude in an alley selling a pirated copy of the movie.
A) An LLM does not inherently sell you anything. Some companies charge you to run and use their LLMs (OpenAI), and some companies publish their LLMs open source for anyone to use (Meta, Microsoft). With neural chips starting to pop in PCs and phones, pretty soon anyone will be able to run an open source LLM locally on their machine, completely for free.
B) LLMs still rarely regurgitate the exact same original source. This would be more like someone in the back alley putting on their own performance of the movie and morphing it and adjusting it in real time based on your prompts and comments, which is a lot closer to parody and fair use than blatant piracy.
In every other circumstance I can think of, “I can’t make money doing a thing unless I break the law” means don’t do that thing.
Why should AI get special treatment?
Well in almost every other circumstance, you’re forgetting Uber and Airbnb.
Now about that fake money for criminals - it was quite useful for me when I needed to send money to my sister, with me being in Russia and her being outside, and it was year 2022. Also with the way ruble sank after the war, buying BTC hours after seeing news of it starting was probably a bargain. Would be twice as expensive the next day.
I haven’t used Uber (Yandex Taxi) and Airbnb (asocial type and have responsibilities), and I agree about the plagiarism machine.
So you didn’t do the crime, but your home country did, and you could use crypto to make life easier despite the repercussions. I’d say it’s not a bad fit.
Nah. Arbitrary shit that doesn’t hurt those who did the crime, but does hurt me, is not repercussions. Neither is it a crime to find tools to solve such problems.
Sorry to break it to you, but bypassing sections is a crime. You just proved his point. Sanctions are supposed to make life difficult for the people in sanctioned countries so that those people maybe start doing something to the person causing the problems.
It may be useful, but it was designed to facilitate criminal payments.
Sanctions are supposed to make life difficult for the people in sanctioned countries so that those people maybe start doing something to the person causing the problems.
Nah. They are supposed to reduce connectivity for everyone except the right people with connections, who deal in shit big enough, like oil, gas etc, but not us serfs and not businessmen who don’t respect their government officials enough to bribe them. This worked especially well in the Iron Curtain times, and it seems there are people nostalgic of that now.
First, spitting into my soup for something other people did is not going to make me more pissed at them (suppose I already was), it’s going to make me more pissed at those spitting into my soup.
Second, knowing that Israel isn’t sanctioned, Turkey isn’t sanctioned, Azerbaijan isn’t sanctioned, but Russia is, not being better, makes it extremely hard to believe that those sanctions are meant to solve problems. Even if I didn’t know how they work.
Third, a country can’t make something a crime outside their jurisdiction.
Ah yes, the original unviable silicon valley businesses! I love how they used their VC money to undercut and kill small businesses all over the world.
AirBNB is currently failing. Uber likely will when people catch on to “dynamic pricing”
Because they already raised hundreds of millions from investors
Because black numbers going up make shareholders happy
The more the original work is transformed, the more likely it is to be considered fair use rather than infringement.
Cool. If OpenAI gets a pass, then piracy should be legal, right? I mean what good is a trademark or copyright law?
Edit: “I can’t make money without stealing other people’s work” is definitely a take
No, see, piracy is just you downloading movies for yourself. To be like OpenAI you need to download it, put it in a pretty package with a bow, then sell it over and over again. Only when it’s piracy for profit do you get to beg and plead for a pass.
But I’m an aspiring artist, without pirating thousands of movies and TV shows, I’ll never make my ‘highly profitable’ magnum opus!
I’m an aspiring dead beat, with out food to provide basic biochemical energy I’ll never beat any dead.
You skipped a crucial step: first you gotta raise a few hundred million in VC funding from Silicon Valley bigwigs!
So if I download a movie and use a voice changer to change all the dialog to sound like the donkey from Shrek, I should be good.
When you get this to work, hit me up for some venture capital.
For profit that you can kick back a chunk of as campaign donations
“I can’t be at financial peace if I have to pay for every movie I want to watch”
You’re not repackaging and selling it on for profit tho. That’s different and thus illegal because reasons
then perish
If I was exempt from copyright, I too could easily make oodles of money
Sounds like an argument slave owners would use. “My plantation can’t make money without free labor!”
“My private prison can’t make money without more overconvicted inmates!”
In any sane society, closing a private prison would be cause for celebration.
How do you think slave owners got bailouts after the 13th amendment was passed and the slaves got freed?
They used that part of the 13th that said “Well, except prisoners, those can be slaves.” Local law enforcement rounded up former slaves on trumped up charges and leased them back to the same plantation owners they were freed from. Only now if they escaped they were “escaped criminals” and they could count on even northern law enforcement returning them. The US is still a pro-slavery country and will be as long as that part of the 13th amendment stands.
Reminds me of that time the Federal government granted land parcels to a bunch of former slaves (using land from plantations) and then rescinded them again.
My plantation can’t make money without everybody’s labour.
Copying information is not the same thing as stealing, let alone forcing people into slavery.
appreciate the important reality check, but I think the parent was just highlighting the absurdity of the original argument with hyperbole.
people are in jail for doing exactly what this company is doing. either enforce the laws equally (!) or change them (whatever that means in late stage capitalism).
Let’s advocate for no one going to prison for scraping information then. Let’s pick the second one where we don’t put more people into prison.
agreed.
I’m going to start pirating again and if I ever get caught up I’ll just inform them I’m training AI models.
Yeah, but you are not rich, so you will suffer the consequences
Just training Natural Intelligence…
The current generation of data hungry AI models with energy requirements of a small country should be replaced ASAP, so if copyright laws spur innovation in that direction I am all for it.
I can’t make money without using OpenAI’s paid products for free.
Checkmate motherfucker
If your company can’t exist without breaking the law, then it shouldn’t exist.
Boo fucking hoo. Everyone else has to make licensing agreements for this kind of shit, pay up.
“Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”
exactly which “needs” are they trying to meet?
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law it simply is a criminal organisation. RICO act, anyone?
Then OpenAI shouldn’t exist. That’s capitalism.
Hey, me either. I guess I can steal too.
