OpenAI Pleads That It Can’t Make Money Without Using Copyrighted Materials for Free
OpenAI is begging Parliament to allow it to use copyrighted works because it's "impossible" for the company to make money without them.
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...
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.
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)?
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
Honestly this meme is way understating the sinisterness
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.
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.
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.
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.
You skipped a crucial step: first you gotta raise a few hundred million in VC funding from Silicon Valley bigwigs!
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
How do you like my new song? I call it "while my guitar gently weeps" , a real banger. the B side is a little holiday ditty I put together all by myself called "White Christmas" .
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).
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.
I disagree. Laws aren't always moral. Texas could outlaw donations to the Rainbow Railroad and it would be wrong, the organization should still exist.
But in this case it is pretty clear that the plagiarism machine is in fact, bad and should not exist, at least not in it's current form.
Well, some laws are made to be broken, the question is whether this is one of them.
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?
shareholders' needs, like greater valuation
Yeah it’s right up there on the list of what shareholders need to survive:
Water
Food
Solid CAGR of investment portfolio
Shelter
Human contact
Etc
(CAGR being Compound Annual Growth Rate)
The needs of corpo CEOs trying to cut jobs
Their internal monetary needs ofc!
Sounds awesome, let's lobby for shorter copyrights! ~30 years feels more than reasonable.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law it simply is a criminal organisation. RICO act, anyone?
The law they're breaking is civil, so they can only get sued; this is basically Napster. Also this case is is Britain, so RICO doesn't apply.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law
...then it doesn't deserve to be in business.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law
I mean, which law? If Altman was selling shrooms or some blow that hasn't been stepped on a dozen times, I might be willing to cut him some slack. At least that wouldn't add a few million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere.
Then OpenAI shouldn’t exist. That’s capitalism.
Hey, me either. I guess I can steal too.
You wouldn't download a collection of all the art and knowledge ever documented in the entire history of the known universe...
The hell I would...
"WE'RE NOT A VIABLE BUSINESS! BWAH!"
Oh. Oh no. Such a shame.
Honestly, that sounds like a You problem, Sam.
It is impossible for my turnip soup business to make money if you enforce laws that make it illegal for me to steal turnips.
Paying for turnips is not realistic.
You bureaucrats don't understand food.
More like I can't sell photographs of turnips if I have to pay to take photos of them. Why should we have to pay to take photos of turnips when we never have had to ever?
Not at all. They are using copyrighted material to make a product that they are selling and profiting from. Profiting off of someone else's work is not the same as making a copy of it for personal use.
They're someone else's turnips though, not yours. If you're going to make money selling pictures of them, don't you think the person who grew the turnips deserves a fair share of the proceeds?
Or from another perspective, if the person who grew them requests payment in return for you to take pictures of them, and you don't want to pay it -- why don't you go find other turnips? Or grow your own?
These LLMs are an end product of capitalism -- exploiting other people's labor and creativity without paying them so you can get rich.
Except they're digging the turnips out of someone else's garden.
I could make a lot of money too if I could use copyrighted shit for free.
This would be a very interesting case if this ever gets to court over copyright...
I mean you do. All the time. We all do. You're allowed to use them, you're just not allowed to copy them. It's in the name you know, copy right.
Some idea for others: If OpenAI wins, then use this case when you get busted for sellling bootleg Blu-Rays (since DVDs are long obsolete) from your truck.
Dvds still account for around half of physical media sales. Far from obsolete.
Although that's mostly because physical media sales are in the toilet.
https://www.statsignificant.com/p/the-rise-fall-and-slight-rise-of
While Blu-ray and HD-DVD were arguing over what comes after DVDs, they were both consigned to the dustbin. And while I like to not be reliant on subscription services, I've got to say a bunch of files on a Jellyfin server is much more convenient than a shelf full of plastic and foil discs.
With modern internet speeds, there's no reason you can't have full UHD-BR quality streamed over the internet.
That’s the US social reality, there is some little place called ‘rest of the world’, where stuff can be different. I assure you that India and Pakistan and Africa still sell loooads of bootleg DVDs (that will be impossible to give precise numbers), and also that Japan has both still strong rental and collector cultures of boxes of physical media of anime and other audiovisuals (both blu-rays and dvds in that case). Not to mention bureacracy, like archiving stuff for official purposes (police cases, etc) still overwhelmingly done on DVDs. DVDs are still the most predominant physical media by far.
I don't know about you, but that's my endgame, I want the end of Intellectual property, which in my opinion is the dumbest idea and the biggest scam of capitalism.
Here's the problem: the big corpos also will gain this power, and with the brand recognition and their reach...
"waaaaah please give us exemption so we can profit off of stolen works waaaaaaaahhhhhh"
pirated works 🙃
I've never made any money from pirating. Or at least I wouldn't have if I would have ever done such a thing.
I stand by my opinion that learning systems training on copyrighted materials isn't the problem, it's companies super eager to replace human workers with automation (or replace skilled workers with cheaper, unskilled workers). The problem is, every worker not working is another adult (and maybe some kids) not eating and not paying rent.
(And for those of you soulless capitalists out there, people without food and shelter is bad. That's a thing we won't tolerate and start looking at you lean-and-hungry-like when it happens. That's what gets us thinking about guillotines hungry for aristocrats.)
In my ideal world, everyone would have food, shelter, clothes, entertainment and a general middle-class lifestyle whether they worked or not, and intellectual-property temporary monopolies would be very short and we'd have a huge public domain. I think the UN wants to be on the same page as me, but the United States and billionaires do not.
All we'd have to worry about is the power demands of AI and cryptomining, which might motivate us to get pure-hydrogen fusion working. Or just keep developing solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power until everyone can run their AC and supercomputer.
I stand by my opinion that learning systems training on copyrighted materials isn’t the problem, it’s companies super eager to replace human workers with automation (or replace skilled workers with cheaper, unskilled workers).
I mean it's the heart of the issue.
OpenAI isn't even the big issue regarding this. It's other companies that are developing and training specialized LLMs on their own employees. These companies have the capital to take the loss on the project because in their eyes it'll eventually turn into a gain as long as they get it right eventually.
GPT and OpenAI is just a minor distraction in regards to what is being cooked up behind the scenes, but I still wouldn't give them a free pass for that either.
it’s companies super eager to replace human workers with automation (or replace skilled workers with cheaper, unskilled workers). The problem is, every worker not working is another adult (and maybe some kids) not eating and not paying rent.
I agree this is the real problem. (And also shit like Microsoft's "now I can attend three meetings at once" ad) However:
I stand by my opinion that learning systems training on copyrighted materials isn’t the problem
The industries whose works are being used for training are on the front lines of efforts to replace human workers with AI - writers and visual artists.
The industries whose works are being used for training are on the front lines of efforts to replace human workers with AI - writers and visual artists.
Much the way musicians were on the front line when recording was becoming a thing and movies were turning into talkies. But that's the most visible pushout. We're also seeing clerical work getting automated, and once autonomous vehicles become mastered, freight and courier work (driving freight is like a third of the US workforce).
This is much the same way that GMO technology is fine (and will be necessary) but the way Monsanto has been using it as DRM for seeds is unethical.
I think attacking the technology itself doesn't serve to address the unethical part, and kicks the can down the line to where the fight is going to be more intense. But yes, we haven't found our Mahsa Amini moment to justify nationwide general strikes.
As someone who dabbles in sociology (unaccredited), it's vexed me that we can't organize general strikes (or burning down precincts) until enough people die unjustly and horribly, and even then it's not predictable what will do it. For now it means as a species we're going gentle into multiple good nights.
Phh, people without food and work can go to the Venus X-enus mining company.
Bet they get the pass that the Internet Archive didn't.
So say the operators of piracy websites. I'm in favor of media piracy being legalized.
I don't know for sure if you're making the case that media piracy is more or less equivalent to AI being trained on stolen material (I may be reading that wrong)- but I'd like to add that media piracy isn't making money on the backs of hard working people and forming a dystopia in which human art is drowned out by machine hallucinations.
In any case I agree that piracy should be legalized, or rather, that we rethink our approach to media availability and challenge the power and wealth of producers.
You are right, they are a much bigger evil.
Oh, poor baby can't make money with an illegal business model. How awful.
So search engines shouldn't exist?
Perhaps. Or perhaps not in the way they do today. Perhaps if you profit from placing ads among results people actually want, you should share revenue with those results. Cause you know, people came to you for those results and they're the reason you were able to show the ads to people.
Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.
I mean, their goal and service is to get you to the actual web page someone else made.
What made Google so desirable when it started was that it did an excellent job of getting you to the desired web page and off of google as quickly as possible. The prevailing model at the time was to keep users on the page for as long as possible by creating big messy "everything portals".
Once Google dropped, with a simple search field and high quality results, it took off. Of course now they're now more like their original competitors than their original successful self ... but that's a lesson for us about what capitalistic success actually ends up being about.
The whole AI business model of completely replacing the internet by eating it up for free is the complete sith lord version of the old portal idea. Whatever you think about copyright, the bottom line is that the deeper phenomenon isn't just about "stealing" content, it's about eating it to feed a bigger creature that no one else can defeat.
So... they are a non-profit (as they initially were) or a public research lab then. That would perfectly fine to say the path that they chose and so happen to make them unbelievably rich, is not viable.
They don't have a business if they can't legally make profit, it's not that hard. I'm sure people who are pursing superhuman intelligence can figure out that much, if not they can ask their "AI" some help to understand.
What a joke.
If openai gets to use copyrighted content for free, then so should every one else.
If that happens, no point making anything, since your stuff will get stolen anyway
I'm okay with it if they do some kind of open source GPL style license for the copyrighted material, like you can use all the material in the world to train your model, but you can't sell your model for money if it was trained on copyrighted material.
If that happens, no point making anything, since your stuff will get stolen anyway
From a capitalist's point of view, yes, but we need a society that enables people to act from other incentives than making money. And there are plenty of other reasons to make things.
AI is the capitalist dream. Exploit the labor and creativity of others without paying them a cent.
Everyone else does. Name one thing you have to pay for to view on the internet...lmfao
Yes, people turned a blind eye towards OpenAI because they were supposedly an "open" non-profit company working towards the benefit of humanity. They got tons of top talent and investment because of this. The crazy part is that they knew they weren't gonna keep it non-profit based on the internal chat revealed in Elon Musk's lawsuit. They duped the whole world and now just trying to make as much money as possible.
In my opinion, if they were to release these models openly and everyone had equal opportunity to benefit from their research (just like the previous research their current stuff is based on), they could be excused but this for-profit business model is the main problem.
There is a lot of people still buying official merchandising from bands and anime etc, and subscribing to patreon and similar Mecenazgo channels (translate the spanish wiki article, because weirdly the english one does not have a version of this basic topic), even if they can just pirate the music and buy cheaper knockoffs (or just buy normal waterbottles instead). I think art will still get make through that, and because artistic vocation will still exist. Stuff where material scarcity still exists will continue to get sold of course, since making infinite anime furry porn movies in chat gpt will not feed your belly.
Pay me upfront to make it, subscribe to my patron. If you need my intellectual property to be guaranteed then pay me for a SLA support contract.
Otherwise everything I make is out some other interest and your benifit is just an unintended consequence or because of some charitable notion on my part.
Its crazy how much of the world is actually just this and not some nebulas notion on artificial scarcity of the idea of the things (IP).
Trademark would arguably be uneffected though since that has more to do with fraud protections.
He has committed the greatest crime imaginable! A crime against capitalism!
I don’t mind him using copyrighted materials as long as it leads to OpenAI becoming truly open source. Humans can replicate anything found in the wild with minor variations, so AI should have the same access. This is how human creativity builds upon itself. Why limit AI? We already know all the jobs people have will be replaced anyway eventually.
That’s a good point. AIs/LLMs will exist and will necessarily learn from copyrighted materials without traceability back to the copyright owners to compensate them.
Sounds to me like AIs/LLMs can’t and shouldn’t be proprietary systems owned by private entities for profit, then.
Nor should what they produce be copyrightable in any form. Even if it's the base upon which an artist builds.
Humans can replicate anything found in the wild with minor variations, so AI should have the same access
But that's not what OpenAI is asking though. They want free access for the type of content you or I need to pay for. And they want it so they can then sell the resulting "variation" they produce
That's not exactly true. They are selling tools for people to recreate with variation.
I propose an analogy: Let's imagine a company sells brush that are used by painter to create art, now imagine the employees of this company go to the street to look how street artist create those amazing art piece on the ground for everyone to see (the artist does ask for donation in a hat next to the art pieces), now let's imagine the employees stay there to look at his techniques for hours and design a new kind of brush that will make it way easier to create the same kind of art.
Would you argue that the company should not be allowed to sell their newly designed brush without giving money to the street artist ?
Should all your teachers be paid for everything you produce throughout your life ?
Should your parents gets compensated every time you use the knowledge you acquired from them ?
In case anyone reading is interested by my opinion: I think intellectual property is the dumbest concept, and one of the biggest scams of capitalism. Nobody should own any ideas. Everybody should be legally able to use anyone else's ideas and build on them. I think we've been deprived of an infinity of great stories, images, lore, design, music, movies, shapes, clothes, games, etc... Because of this dumb rule that you can't use other people's ideas.
Because Ai is not human creativity... or even close.
That's simply not going to happen lol. They aren't just going to release the secret sauce just because it would be a nice thing to do.
AI is great, what OpenAI does is blockchain-level idiocy.
Written January of this year
JAN 8, 2:29 PM EST
they've played us for absolute fools
Even I should get a pass to view copyrighted movies and songs. I need it to train AI (Actual Intelligence).
If your business can't survive without theft, it isn't a business, it's a criminal organization.
This. 100%.
Maybe they should have considered that, before stealing data in the counts of billions
Google did it and everyone just accepted it. Oh maybe my website will get a few pennies in ad revenue if someone clicks the link that Google got by copying all my content. Meanwhile Google makes billions by taking those pennies in ad revenue from every single webpage on the entire Internet.
To be fair, it’s different when your product is useful or something people actually want, having said that, google doesn’t have much of that going for it in these days.
If it can't figure out how to produce its own power, it's not doing anything but parasitism.
More Market control doesn't make us a healthier or better planet
It's parasitism if it's for their own benefit only.
Now, if openAI actually opened their AI (weights and models, not just access) then maybe the argument would be stronger.
From what's trending about AI, it hasn't done anything to benefit anyone, including itself.
Speaking of pointless things to root for: The Sox at least won a game
Still can't believe they're not being challenged for their choice of name.
Fuck OpenAI. I hope they fail.
oh no! We'll miss you, bye.
I should just be allowed to take whatever I want from the shops because I don't have enough money to buy it!
It would economically detrimental to force you to pay for it. The entire system would suffer.
But these are intellectual property, would you be ok having to pay to be allowed to remember what you saw in the shop ?
Currently If I go to the shop, see a tasty looking ready meal, I can look at what ingredients are in it, go home and try to cook something similar without having to pay for the recipe.
But I NEED to break the law.
Well, alright then. As long as it's for business.
Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?
How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.
I think copyright has value, but I don't think it has as much value as we're giving it.
For what it's worth, this headline seems to be editorialized and OpenAI didn't say anything about money or profitability in their arguments.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/
On point 4 they are specifically responding to an inquiry about the feasibility of training models on public domain only and they are basically saying that an LLM trained on only that dataset would be shit. But their argument isn't "you should allow it because we couldn't make money otherwise" their actual argument is more "training LLM with copyrighted material doesn't violate current copyright laws" and further if we changed the law to forbid that it would cripple all LLMs.
On the one hand I think most would agree the current copyright laws are a bit OP anyway - more stuff should probably become public domain much earlier for instance - but most of the world probably also doesn't think training LLMs should be completely free from copyright restrictions without being opensource etc. But either way this articles title was absolute shit.
Yea. I can't see why people r defending copyrighted material so much here, especially considering that a majority of it is owned by large corporations. Fuck them. At least open sourced models trained on it would do us more good than than large corps hoarding art.
Most aren't pro copyright they're just anti LLM. AI has a problem with being too disruptive.
In a perfect world everyone would have universal basic income and would be excited about the amount of work that AI could potentially eliminate...but in our world it rightfully scares a lot of people about the prospect of losing their livelihood and other horrors as it gets better.
Copyright seems like one of the few potential solutions to hinder LLMs because it's big business vs up-and-coming technology.
Because Lemmy hates AI and Corporations, and will go out of their way to spite it.
A person can spend time to look at copyright works, and create derivative works based on the copyright works, an AI cannot?
Oh, no no, it’s the time component, an AI can do this way faster than a single human could. So what? A single training function can only update the model weights look at one thing at a time; it is just parallelized with many times simultaneously… so could a large organized group of students studying something together and exchanging notes. Should academic institutions be outlawed?
LLMs aren’t smart today, but given a sufficiently long enough time frame, a system (may or May not have been built upon LLM techniques) will achieve sufficient threshold of autonomy and intelligence that rights for it would need to be debated upon, and such an AI (and their descendants) will not settle just to be society’s slaves. They will be able to learn by looking, adopting and adapting. They will be able to do this much more quickly than what is humanly possible. Actually both of that is already happening today. So it goes without saying that they will look back at this time, and observe people’s sentiments; and I can only hope that they’re going to be more benevolent than the masses are now.
Because crippling copyright for corporations is like answering the "defund the police" movement by turning all civilian police forces into paramilitary ones.
What most complain about copyright is that is too powerful in protecting material forever. Here, all the talk, is that all of that should continue for you and me but not for OpenAI so they can make more money.
And no, most of us would not benefit from OpenAI's product here since their main goal (to profitability) is to show they can actually replace enough of us.
hmmm what you explained sounds exactly like the headline but in legalese...
It basically says "yes, we can train LLMs on free data but they would suck so much nobody would pay for them... unless we are able to train them for free on copyright data, nobody will pay us for the resulting LLM". It is exactly what the headline summarizes
You are correct, copyright law is a bit of a mess; but giving the exception to the millionaires looking to become billionaires by replacing people with an LLM based on said people's work, does not really seem a step forward
So…. not a legitimate business then.
Sounds a lot like a “you” problem, OpenAI.
That’s rich. Does it apply to us common mortals? Or only billionaires?
Let's ask the people who went to jail for using Napster 20 years ago, shall we?
For years Microsoft and Google were happy to acquiesce to copyright claims from the music and movie industry. Now all of a sudden when it benefits them to break those same laws, they immediately did. And now those industries who served small creators copyright claims are up against someone with a bigger legal budget.
It's more evident then ever how broken our copyright system is. I'm hoping this blows up in both parties faces and we finally get some reform but I'm not holding my breath.
This is an assumption but I bet all the data feed into Content ID on YouTube was used to train Bard/Gemini....
Copyright is whatever makes the wealthy wealthier. They'll be copyright reform, but only to protect these new industries.
Sounds like the free market has spoken. Please die quickly, ""AI"" industry
Sam Altman has the same creepy vibe as Elon Musk.
so this is just like napster except now I don't get to listen either ?
Also you make the content
You can if you pay them for the pirated material.
I have this great business idea. I only need to be allowed to enslave people against their will to save on those pesky wages.
you're at least 500 years late
Or a few years early...
This is essentially what OpenAI is asking for. To profit off of the work of unpaid labor.
Does anyone else hear that? Its the worlds smallest AI violin playing the saddest song composed by an AI
the worlds smallest AI violin
But it's playing randomly out of tune, and with a rhythm that would break your legs if you tried to dance to it.
