8 points

if my product was labelled “general purpose” I’d consider that a slur

permalink
report
reply
3 points

that’s sad (or delusion).

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

can it be both?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

Yeah nah, fuck copyright, we should be making it weaker and not stronger

permalink
report
reply
25 points

Sure, but this isn’t about making copyright stricter, but just making it explicit that the existing law applies to AI tech.

I’m very critical of copyright law, but letting specifically big tech pretend like they’re not distributing derivative work because it’s derived from billions of works on the internet is not the gateway to copyright abolition I’d hope to see.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

There are many good reasons to be critical of copyright, especially because it has been abused so much. Allowing big tech grifters unlimited access to everything everyone ever puts online because they promise to “democratize art” when all they really do it feed it into their spicy autocomplete engines which then flood the internet with AI sludge is not one of them.

Especially when the same fucking people then do a 180 and want protection for the shit their roided Clippy puked out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

feed it into their spicy autocomplete engines which then flood the internet with AI sludge

I’m getting a mental image of a wood chipper: a word chipper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

roided Clippy

idk the assets that came with my pirated word installs were better than today’s AI dreck

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They were tailored, and surprisingly thorough.

In the last few years I’ve gone through an old lexicon, my grandfather’s book about building cabins, and I studied halfway through an old SolidWorks training book and I’ve been well surprised by how good the quality is. The detail they go into and the quality of illustrations gets very high.

It has left me with a feeling that the past generation were far better at making teaching material, Clippy isn’t the greatest example of that but he was a result of their generation’s thinking about how to teach. We’ve left a lot of it up to YouTube and other solo efforts, and we’ve completely resigned ourselves to accepting that the books required in higher education are more scam than they are instructive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

This isn’t a copyright thing. This is a tech regulation thing, that creates the possibility for data protection agencies to stick their noses in AI company’s business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

General purpose” mostly means LLMs. Companies have a year to write documentation and promise to follow copyright.

Says it right there

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

how does allowing the ai companies to ignore copyright improve the situation, pray tell?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Takes me much less than a year to promise to do anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This quote got me rent free. If I break a law I don’t like for a couple of years, do I also get another year to “promise” to stop breaking it in the future?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

you’ve got to say more than that

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Stronger but shorter, please.

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 240

    Posts

  • 5.7K

    Comments

Community moderators