• CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • TuringCompleteSocialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • isekaihero@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        True. Profit is about the only thing these companies will never generate, but there’s still money being thrown at them, it’s just being spent on bonuses, mergers, and data centers.

        Scrapers could peel off 1B of that to pay for what they’re taking (like the pay for antique, print only books—because they can’t physically steal those) instead of just robbing the commons if they really wanted to, if they thought that anything they were doing was ethically defensible or financially sustainable. ___

  • wallwood@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Chinese models like Kimi are already competing head-to-head with Claude Opus in term of capability. And the main reason that kimi isn’t as widely used as Claude is because Chinese companies aren’t burning investors money to keep subscription prices low. I wonder how long will this dominance can last. Since investor money will eventually run out. and once that happens, what plans do they have to keep competing with free open weight models that already closed the gap.

  • DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I am okay with that. As long we are consistent with the copyright law. If OpenAI can break copyright to make their own money, it should be legal to me too.

    Laws should be the same for everyone and no one should be above the law

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    There’s not just a desperation for Skynet by US government, like protecting oil from EVs/renewables, this is also about creating new oligarchs to fund electoral results that oppress Americans/humanity.