"Furious"
Somehow I don't think that word applies to companies
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
1096 points (99.0% liked)
Not The Onion
12994 readers
2380 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, look at the size of the tear this brings to my eye.
Wherever you fall on the anti-AI spectrum, I thought after the past 2 decades of piracy we had come to the conclusion that you can't "steal" data, copying != Stealing
If anything, this is kind of making people realize the opposite. It isn't stealing when it is corporate (or creator...) but it is TOTALLY stealing when it is individual people... who aren't authors or artists.
The fun part is that "creating" datasets for training steal from everyone equally.
And when it comes to authors and artists, it amounts to wage theft. When a company hires an artist to make an ad, the artist gets paid to make it. If you then take that ad, you're not taking money from the worker - they already got paid for the work that they did. Even if you take a piece from the social media of an independent artist and make a meme out of it or something, so long as people can find that artist, it can lead to people hiring them. But if you chop it up and mash it into a data set, you're taking their work for profit or to avoid paying them for their skills and expertise to create something new. AI can not exist without a constant stream of human art to devour, yet nobody thinks the work to produce that art is worth paying for. It's doing a corporation to avoid paying the working class what their skills are worth.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I can’t recall a time when I downloaded an album, pretended I made it, and tried to sell access to it.
This would be more like buying a van halen album, learning eddies style, writing and recording my own van halen style songs and selling those. Still an infringement?
Well, your example isn't quite right because these companies didn't buy the data originally.
I'd say it's more like when somebody samples a song without permission and uses it in their own music. If we wanna go even further, I'd say the AI companies we have today are basically making and selling synthesizers created off of samples used without permission. The AI don't learn the way we do, they simply regurgitate what they think is correct based on the probability they get from an algorithm derived from their training set.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
I want to punch his face. (Proceeds to Wim Hof breathe)
Openai has been trying to switch for-profit. They must be loving the hype. Now they have an excuse.