Alright, then copyright is dead.
Ad block and canceling subscriptions it is then.
Yarhar!
I’m downloading all of Netflix library to train my LLM.
which technically makes piracy legal because that’s the gov endorsing piracy
should update torrent client to say “LLM training agent” instead, legally safe /s
I consider myself somewhat of a LLM.
there’s a Morrissey song about that
yup
Legal for them, not for us
Nah we might need to accept reality. You need to be rich enough to make some bullshit company that uses A.I. then you can pirate legally using that A.I. as an excuse.
so Norm was right. …
You need a $$$/hr lawyer to pull <$100 LLC paperwork out of their briefcase. “My client was just training his company’s innovative new LLM.” We live in an odd world.
Peasants like us can contribute to global leadership by being wage slaves and cannon fodder
Those were supposed to be the clanker jobs while we humans guided technical innovation, pursued art, culture, philosophy, and solving the biggest problems of humanity.
amen, brother!
Aaron Schwartz’s prosecution was always bullshit. RIP.
Precedent that copyright is not legally enforceable
Precedent that laws don’t apply to billionaires.
Crime is legal now.
Got it, so then they’re outlaws and I can do whatever I want to them.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be as upset if the playing field was level. Alright, you can slurp up and remix the world’s works, but so can anyone, for any reason, for free. Personally, I think use restrictions should only target commercial use, but I’m sure that’s a much more divisive topic. We have a law that is not being applied to those most likely to abuse it at scale.
Precendent was already there. Copyright has never been enforceable when it’s transformative. Collage is legal, so was training neural nets before the copyright industry saw money in it.
No one is saying they output of an llm is copyright (this is a different debate).
What people are talking about is they stole copyright work. They pirated from torrent sights mass amounts of data. That’s the violation at problem.
The output of the training, the model (LLM) itself, is transformative. I’m not talking about the output of the llm nor was the person I was responding to.
The pirating issue has nothing to do with the current lawsuit (the New York Times one mentioned in the article) nor did the government mention it in the current context.
That being said, I’m a pirate in my personal life, and I also think it’s kind of a necessary evil when it comes to building SOTA models. I wish we had a copy left solution to it, so you can use pirated data but need to open source it, so open source has a fighting chance and big AI can buy it if they want it. I’m okay with openAI and anthropic getting brought into court about it I guess, but the legislation ends up being market capture in their favor in the end.
I understand the issues though, very “rule for thee but not for me” currently.
Peak capitalism, steal everything from the masses, remix and regurgitate it so no one is the wiser, then sell it back to them via a subscription model.
Makes me sick.
Rules for thee, not for me.
Pirating anything isn’t illegal anymore. If the government can pick and choose people and groups who don’t have to pay for patent or copyright, then there are no patents or copyrights.
To clarify, this is the government’s position, not the law. This hasn’t been officially ruled on yet.
In a lawsuit that The New York Times filed against OpenAI, the Trump administration has contributed a 20-page brief in defense of the ChatGPT maker’s unlicensed use of copyrighted material to train its LLMs.
However, it’s not looking promising in legal terms either.
Pirating was illegal? When?
Kleptocracy.
This just in… I think I’m going to start training my own LLM on various movies, TV shows, and music. US government said it was ok.
But you don’t get to enjoy copyrighted materiel yourself
“Rent it again if you love it so much.”
So it’s eminent domain on other people’s copyrighted content?
Gotta keep funneling money to those billionaires.
Rules for thee and not for me.
Really cool how the supreme court doesnt give a shit about the law anymore and like half their rulings are “ik the law says we cant do this, but that would be really inconvenient so it doesnt matter”
To my understanding, and excuse me if I‘m wrong because I‘m not a lawyer but that‘s not what the fucking law says? You either uphold copyright law or abandon it. There is no middle way and if courts disagree with you, your stance doesn‘t really matter here.
You misunderstand. YOU can’t use the data. Heck, you can’t easily find it anymore either. They’re scanning all the books and ripping them up as we speak too.
Big companies CAN because they own YOU. Clear?
Uh what do you mean you can’t easily find it anymore? Search engines still exist (perhaps avoid Google unless you have to use it) and neither bookstores, nor the library, are out of books.
The reason they can do this with books is that there are so, so many books that nobody else wants to buy. Like so many that you can just buy books by the foot as a decoration. What books will you get? Nobody knows because nobody gave enough of a fuck to write it down. They’re only valuable for LLM training because they’re new data and they’re only “rare” (as said in some articles) because there wasn’t enough demand to print more.
And destroying the books means there’s no extra copy of them, so for the purpose of copyright law, all is good unless an LLM straight up recites a passage from a book.
Honestly that whole thing might end up being net neutral or even positive, as the paper can be recycled, instead of sitting around as books nobody will read.
We are all training our own AI models now.
They got you hoodwinked there.
They don’t like to talk about it, but the US founding fathers were raging leftists (although that terminology didn’t exist yet). The framers of the constitution had no intention to create a class of intellectual landlords extracting rent from the people. That is why copyright is strictly limited in the constitution.
[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
The language is archaic. Useful Arts means inventions and Science means knowledge. The economic consequences of copyright are very much at issue.
That AI training is (generally) Fair Use is a no-brainer. It’s actually much harder to justify copyrights for entertainment products.
Where’s all the people shouting how awesome capitalism is, private ownership, the communists will come steal everything from you.
Here come capitalists to steal everything you own so they can make more money. Copyright, shmopyright. They’ve also got eminent domain on their side to build walls and data centers
