• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle



  • It’s not the same issue at all.

    Piracy distributes power. It allows disenfranchised or marginalized people to access information and participate in culture, no matter where they live or how much money they have. It subverts a top-down read-only culture by enabling read-write access for anyone.

    Large-scale computing services like these so-called AIs consolidate power. They displace access to the original information and the headwaters of culture. They are for-profit services, tuned to the interests of specific American companies. They suppress read-write channels between author and audience.

    One gives power to the people. One gives power to 5 massive corporations.



  • The artists (and the people who want to see them continue to have a livelihood, a distinct voice, and a healthy engaged fanbase) live in that society.

    The platforms where the images are posted will be selling and brokering

    Isn’t this exactly the problem though?

    From books to radio to TV, movies, and the internet, there’s always:

    • One group of people who create valuable works
    • Another group of people who monopolize distribution of those works

    The distributors hijack ownership (or de facto ownership) of the work, through one means or another (either logistical superiority, financing requirements, or IP law fuckery) and exploit their position to make themselves the only channel for creators to reach their audience and vice-versa.

    That’s the precise pattern that OpenAI is following, and they’re doing it at a massive scale.

    It’s not new. Youtube, Reddit, Facebook, MySpace, all of these companies started with a public pitch about democratizing access to content. But a private pitch emerged, of becoming the main way that people access content. When it became feasible for them to turn against their users and liquidate them, they did.

    The difference is that they all had to wait for users to add the content over time. Imagine if Google knew they could’ve just seeded Google Video with every movie, episode, and clip ever aired or uploaded anywhere. Just say, “Mon Dieu! It’s impossible for us to run our service without including copyrighted materials! Woe is us!” and all is forgiven.

    But honestly, whichever way the courts decide, the legality of it doesn’t matter to me. It’s clearly a “Whose Line Is It?” situation where the rules are made up and ownership doesn’t matter. So I’m looking at “Does this consolidate power, or distribute it?” And OpenAI is pulling perhaps the biggest power grab that we’ve seen.

    Unrelated: I love that there’s a very distinct echo of something we saw with the previous era of tech grift, crypto. The grifters would always say, after they were confronted, “Well, there’s no way to undo it now! It’s on the blockchain!” There’s always this back-up argument of “it’s inevitable so you might as well let me do it”.








  • Yep. Same problem we have with AI use of free-to-view literature and art. The author’s intent is often to invite others to participate in a collective effort, and start an ongoing conversation where works can be shared back and forth and everyone improves as a result.

    Corpo use of FOSS — and especially ML training on free-to-view works — often takes the fruits of the collective effort and then sprints directly away from the community, refusing to participate and sometimes even wrapping a thin for-profit layer around the free underlying tools.

    In the case of AI, this for-profit wrapper is so comprehensive and so thoroughly obscures any reference to the source material that not only can it replace the original communities very effectively, but it denies any ability to navigate through to the original communities even if you wanted to.




  • Looks like that’s based on an outdated TOS. Even then, those terms are pretty tame except for the one about transferable license for uploaded content, which has thankfully been narrowed by a lot in the current TOS. (Now it just means: We’re allowed to store your images on S3, resize them, and show them to people you specifically selected to send them to.)

    For a company that’s worried about 230 safe harbor, GDPR, CCPA, and wants to promote their first-party products at you, this is all standard.

    Also:

    This service does not sell your personal data


  • Their privacy policy says they don’t sell your data.

    Not that you should automatically trust any communication platform (present Lemmies excluded), but exchange of data for services is at least not the business model on paper.

    In a sense, you still “are the product”, because people won’t buy Nitro if there’s noone to talk to.

    But that’s different from like… tracking micro-motions of your mouse to categorize your personality traits and increase ad conversions.