Ancestors

Written by froztbyte@awful.systems on 2024-10-21 at 05:48

Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 27 October 2024

https://awful.systems/post/2668740

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from froztbyte@awful.systems

Toot

Written by gerikson@awful.systems on 2024-10-21 at 14:42

The Bookseller: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from gerikson@awful.systems

Descendants

Written by BlueMonday1984@awful.systems on 2024-10-21 at 15:50

Now that the content mafia has realized GenAI isn’t gonna let them get rid of all the expensive and troublesome human talent. it’s time to give Big AI a wedgie.

Considering the massive(ly inflated) valuations running around Big AI and the massive amounts of stolen work that powers the likes of CrAIyon, ChatGPT, DALL-E and others, I suspect the content mafia is likely gonna try and squeeze every last red cent they can out of the AI industry.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BlueMonday1984@awful.systems

Written by YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 09:15

At some point, something is going to reveal that all the money in AI has gone into power costs for datacenters and NVidia chips and that the AI companies themselves aren’t doing so hot. I hope it’s the discovery process for some of the inevitable lawsuits.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems

Written by David Gerard on 2024-10-22 at 18:07

it’s pretty publicly known

the VCs are gonna take one heckuva bath

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dgerard@awful.systems

Written by bitofhope@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 00:56

It’s weird how rarely I see people point this, but in theory this kind of boilerplate should be technically meaningless. If copyright protections include the privilege to use the work for training a machine learning algorithm, you need explicit permission anyway. OTOH if it’s fair use or otherwise not something copyright law is concerned with, the copyright holder’s objection doesn’t matter.

For the record, I think AI models are derivative works and thus they’re not only infringing on typical “all rights reserved” works, but also things such as Free software whose license terms require attribution if used in derivative work, and especially share-alike copyleft licensed work.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bitofhope@awful.systems

Written by gerikson@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 07:17

I thinkt it’s pretty well-lknown that Spotify got all its initial music from Oink. They moved fast, got dominant, and were able to present the record labels with a big audience prepared to pay for streaming music. The labels quickly ensured they’d get the lion’s share of that revenue.

OpenAI and friends tried the same thing - scrape everything, build AGI, reap the rewards. Except it didn’t work, and they’re in a much worse position morally. Even if they can get a judgement that what they’re doing is legal, it will cost them a lot in litigation fees, coupled with the public perception that these culture vampires are ripping off the poor honest author. Not a good place to be in.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from gerikson@awful.systems