68 points

Companies use pirated content: line go up! 📈

Everyday people use pirated content: STRAIGHT TO JAIL!

permalink
report
reply
28 points

If companies were really treated like people, they’d be in jail right now - at least in the US. But they wouldn’t come out reformed, just beaten and bruised, ready to commit more crimes.

Anti Commercial-AI license

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

The point of treating companies like people is so no one in those companies can be held accountable. The worst case for them that the intangible “coorporation” did something wrong and now it has to go away, so the entire board moves to a new company under a new name that owns the same properties and has the same practices. Only now they have practice obfuscating their crimes.

What ends lives and careers for people are just a minor inconvinience to coorporations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The CEO of a corporation should be the living embodiment of that corp. Kind of like Subway in Community

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points

I’m starting to think commercial AI should be banned. if the only way to make useful models is by ingesting human culture, then all humans should benefit from it without having to pay to have that culture shat back out in response to a prompt.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

The “issue” is that this logic applies to all human creations as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Sure, but the argument isn’t “should we ban work that is based on the study of past cultural creation” it’s “we should prevent computational/corporate exploitation of past cultural creation in order to protect the interests of humans.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’m saying we’ve already allowed corporate exploitation of human culture for centuries. But yes, by all means, if AI is the last straw then I’m with you. But I want people to see the broader picture and not hyperfocus only on AI.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

i disagree. IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means… but both the scale an impunity and frankly the entitlement exhibited by these GenAI companies is on another level.

no matter how many times people make the argument that AIs are just “doing what humans do”, it fails to sway me. an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

I’m not saying the process is exactly the same but conceptually it’s quite similar. Humans don’t create original ideas. They build on what came before. Maybe a truly brilliant artist or inventor adds 1% new ideas. That’s not enough to justify the extremely broad ownership of ideas that exists in our society. These laws implicitly assume that ideas were created from nothing through the sheer brilliance of the creator. Pure nonsense.

Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years. It’s how we built everything we have. Ideas and art were not meant to be owned. The very concept of owning something non-physical is violent and authoritarian in nature. Without physical possession, the only way IP laws can be enforced is a global police empire, which the US has successfully created for its own enrichment at the expense of the global poor.

So in that context, the fact that AI is borrowing human ideas and then profiting from it doesn’t bother me any more than that humans do the same thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means…

“Until author’s death + 70 years”… not perfectly, is WAY of an understatement.

an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.

Wrong. There is no database of the training data in the model that “regurgitates” abstracted concepts from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Im starting to agree with that premise. Since these models only exist using the public’s data they should be public models only. No commercial use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Same can be said of commercial Schools, Colleges, and Universities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think the alternative: copyright should be looser. It usually only benefits corporations and lawyers.

Though it would be naive to consider AI companies and ally in a goal to reduce copyright terms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Hehe we do a little scraping

permalink
report
reply
1 point

It should be assumed by default that data collection is almost always non-consensual.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Surprise!

permalink
report
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.7K

    Posts

  • 9.6K

    Comments