What a bunch of losers, thinking they are making the future…… by stealing from as many artists as they can? How do you convince yourself you are doing the right thing when what you are doing is scaling up the theft of art from small artists to a tech company sized operation?
And how much oxygen has been wasted over the years by music companies pushing the narrative that “stealing” from artists with torrenting is wrong? This is so much worse than stealing (and a million times worse than torrenting) though because the point of the theft is to destroy the livelihood of the artist who was stolen from and turn their art into a cheap commodity that can be sold as a service with the artist seeing none of the monetary or cultural reward for their work.
Did you just make a contradictory argument for both sides?
Is your distinction that piracy by individuals gives cultural recognition while that of corporations doesn’t?
If you think piracy is warranted, at the cost of artists/creators, how is a generalized AI that makes it available and more accessible as a cultural abstracted good different?
I’m going to imagine it’s because that cultural abstracted good is then put behind a pay wall, which OP will theb also pirate, thus fulfilling the prophesy.
And that’s the issue I in particular have. It’s a double standard and not only that, they’re using it to generate money for their own tools
It’s not the same as some kid pirating photoshop to play around with, or a couple who is curious about GOT and want to watch it without paying HBO.
This is a separate issue and I hate that this place is so reddit like that trying to talk about it gets “hurrr dur I guess you’re mad because AI and meta are just the current hate train circle jerk hurrr i form my own opinions hurr”
Like, no, I’m upset because this is a whole new topic of piracy use.
I’m not upset because I think it is totally irrelevant because training AI is not reproducing any works and it is no different than a person who reads or sees said works talking about or creating in the style of said works.
At the core, this amounts to thought policing as the final distilled issue if this is given legal precedent. It would be a massive regression of fundamental human rights with terrible long term implications. This is no different than how allowing companies to own your data and manipulate you has directly lead to a massive regression of human rights over the last 25 years. Reacting like foolish luddites to a massive change that seems novel in the moment will have far reaching consequences most people lack the fundamental logic skills to put together in their minds.
In practice, offline AI is like having most of the knowledge of the internet readily available for your own private use in a way that is custom tailored to each individual. I’m actually running large models on my own computer daily. This is not hypothetical, or hyperbole; this is empirical.
Meta stealing intellectual property and utilizing it for corporate gain is not the same as normal users pirating content. They are so far apart that it warrants its own discussion and cannot be lumped in together.
I’m pretty sure “admits” implies an attempt to hide it. They’ve explicitly said in the model’s initial publication that the training set includes Books3.
AI is just too much of a hype. Every company invests millions into AI and all new products need to “have AI”. And then everybody also needs to file lawsuits. I mean rightly so if Meta just pirated the books, but that’s not a problem with AI, but plain old piracy.
I was pretty sure OpenAI or Meta didn’t license gigabytes of books correctly for use in their commercial products. Nice that Meta now admitted to it. I hope their " Fair Use" argument works and in the future we can all “train AI” with our “research dataset” of 40GB of ebooks. Maybe I’m even going to buy another harddisk and see if I can train an AI on 6 TB of tv series, all marvel movies and a broad mp3 collection.
Btw, there was no denying anyways. Meta wrote a scientific paper about their LLaMA model in march of last year. And they clearly listed all of their sources, including Books3. Other companies aren’t that transparent. And even less so as of today.
I do wonder how it shakes out. If the case establishes that a license to use the material should be acquired for copyrighted material, then maybe the license I’m setting on comments might bring commercial AI companies in hot water too - which I’d love. Opensource AI models FTW
That license would require the AI model to only output content under the same license. Not sure if you realize, but commercial use is part of the OpenSource definition:
They’re fancy receipts, and if people thought of them as just that it might be a technology with some limited non-monetary uses. But, the crypto grift was too strong.
Actually I prefer if individual users pirating being considere fair use, but corporation pirating not be considered fair use. So them pirating is not fine but us pirating should be.
That’s not the take away you should be having here, it’s that a mega Corp felt that they should be allowed to create new content from someone else’s work, both without their permission and without paying
ok, fair; but do consider the context that the models are open weight. You can download them and use them for free.
There is a slight catch though which I’m very annoyed at: it’s not actually Apache. It’s this weird license where you can use the model commercially up until you have 700M Monthly users, which then you have to request a custom license from meta. ok, I kinda understand them not wanting companies like bytedance or google using their models just like that, but Mistral has their models on Apache-2.0 open weight so the context should definitely be reconsidered, especially for llama3.
It’s kind of a thing right now- publishers don’t want models trained on their books, „because it breaks copyright“ even though the model doesn’t actually remember copyrighted passages from the book. Many arguments hinge on the publishers being mad that you can prompt the model to repeat a copyrighted passage, which it can do. IMO this is a bullshit reason
anyway, will be an interesting two years as (hopefully) copyright will get turned inside out :)
The current top whipping boy is AI, apparently. "AI must be bad" is the highest level assumption, so apparently even in this piracy community that overrides the usual "copyright must be bad" assumption.
Or is it actually "Meta must be bad?" I've lost track of who the Five Minutes Hate is supposed to be directed at lately.
I called you stupid because of what you said. There is no universal whipping boy, you also struggle with reading comprehension, pretty severely.
I always find it so weird how the people who scream “I FORM MY OWN OPINIONS” are usually the dumbest, with the least formed opinions. You need to use that as a buffer because you don’t have a thought out opinion but you’re afraid of not being apart of the conversation.
Almost like the context matters and the world isn’t entirely made up of black and white binary choices because we’re not robots or computers and discrete logic does not apply to human moral arguments.
Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.
So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?
Is there a principled basis for this argument?
It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn’t a legal regime like you’re advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." His point was that only small-minded men refused to rethink their prior beliefs.
So what you’re saying is this episode has caused you/others here on /c/piracy to rethink your prior beliefs, and now you see some value in the copyright legal regime?
Add comment