He / They
They know that verification is happening as we shift rightwards, but instead of being the ones beholden to implement an age-verification system that puts them at risk, they want to have device manus do it, which would absolve PH from any responsibility. It’s a business move, on their part.
Sucks for everyone without a dope homelab/ home data center setup!
Might have to break this into a couple replies. because this is a LOT to work through.
Anthropic is the only company to have admitted publicly to doing this. They were sued and settled out of court. Google and OpenAI have had no such accusations as far as I’m aware.
Meta is being sued by several groups over this, including porn companies who caught them torrenting. Their defense has been to claim that the 2,400 videos downloaded to their corporate IP space was done for “personal use”.
OpenAI is also being accused of pirating books (not scraping), and it has been unable to prove legal procurement of them.
There is no such legal distinction [scraping for summary use vs scraping for supplanting the original content]. Scraping content is legal no matter WTF you plan to do with it.
Interestingly, it’s actually Meta’s most recent partial win that explicitly helps disproves this. Apart from just generally ripping into Meta for clearly infringing copyright, the judge wrote (page 3)
There is certainly no rule that when your use of a protected work is “transformative,” this automatically inoculates you from a claim of copyright infringement. And here, copying the protected works, however transformative, involves the creation of a product with the ability to severely harm the market for the works being copied, and thus severely undermine the incentive for human beings to create. Under the fair use doctrine, harm to the market for the copyrighted work is more important than the purpose for which the copies are made.
So yes, Fair Use absolutely does take into account market harms.
What an AI model does isn’t copyright infringement (usually).
I never asserted this, and I am well aware of the distinction between the copyright infringement which involved the illegal obtainment of copyrighted material, and the AI training. You seem to be bringing a whole host of objections you get from others and applying them to me.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to require that AI companies legally acquire a copy of any copyrighted material. Just as it would not be legal for me to torrent a movie even if I wanted to do something transformative with it, AI companies should not be able to do so either.
Because the same rules that allow Google to train their search with everyone’s copyrighted websites are what allow the AI companies to train their models.
This is false, by omission. Many of the AI companies have been downloading content through means other than scraping, such as bittorrent, to access and compile copyrighted data that is not publicly scrape-able. That includes Meta, OpenAI, and Google.
The day we ban ingress of copyrighted works into whatever TF people want is the day the Internet stops working.
That is also false. Just because you don’t understand the legal distinction between scraping content to summarize in order to direct people to a site (there was already a lawsuit against Google that established this, as well as its boundaries), versus scraping content to generate a replacement that obviates the original content, doesn’t mean the law doesn’t understand it.
My comment right here is copyrighted. So is yours! I didn’t ask your permission before my Lemmy client downloaded it. I don’t need to ask your permission to use your comment however TF I want until I distribute it. That’s how the law works. That’s how it’s always worked.
The DMCA also protects the sites that host Lemmy instances from copyright lawsuits. Because without that, they’d be guilty of distribution of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission every damned day.
And none of this matters, because AI companies aren’t just reading content, they’re taking it and using it for commercial purposes.
Perhaps you are unaware, but (at least in the US) while it is legal for you to view a video on YouTube, if you download it for offline use that would constitute copyright infringement if the owner objects. The video being public does not grant anyone and everyone the right to use it however they wish. Ditto for something like making an mp3 of a song on Spotify using Audacity.
People who hate AI are supporting an argument that the movie and music studios made in the 90s: That “downloading is theft.” It is not! In fact, because that is not theft, we’re all able to enjoy the Internet every day.
First off, I do not hate AI, I use it myself (locally-run). My issue is with AI companies using it to generate profit at the expense of the actual creators whose art AI companies are trying to replace (i.e. not directing people to it, like search results).
Secondly, no one is arguing that it is theft, they are arguing that it is copyright infringement, which is what all of us are also subject to under the DMCA. So we’re actually arguing that AI companies should be held to the same standard that we are.
Also, note that AI companies have argued in court (in the case brought by Steven King et al) that their use of copyrighted material shouldn’t fall under DMCA at all (i.e. arguing that it’s not about Fair Use), because their argument is that AI training is not the ‘intended use’ of the source material, so this is not eating into that commercial use. That argument leaves copyright infringement liability intact for the rest of us, while solely exempting them from liability. No thanks.
Luckily, them arguing they’re apart and separate from Fair Use also means that this can be rejected without affecting Fair Use! Double-win!
Yes, this is in fact a good argument for not banning AI.
It’s not an argument for not holding companies legally accountable for using copyrighted material to do it.
These suits aren’t actually equivalent to Sony v UCS, they’re equivalent to someone suing a bootleg video company.
“We think people just like Blahaj because their friends online do, not because of the shark itself, but we have no evidence either way, and also mainstream media is liberal and bad.”
That’s definitely dependent on the company. Every company I’ve worked for that has their own data centers refers to any service outside their direct hardware control as cloud infra. Co-lo is the only shared hosting model I’ve never seen considered cloud.
The widespread conflation of IaaS/PaaS with cloud is due to AWS/ GCP/ Azure marketing. VPSes used to be considered cloud, prior to IaaS and PaaS existing, because cloud was anything that was not on-prem.
Hilarious that Scott Manley was one of the first to figure it out.
To be fair, I have never tried it.
requires a victim to first install a malicious app on an Android phone or tablet
Hardware support.
If I have to own a specific phone or line of phones, that I otherwise would never buy, I’m not going to get one just to run Linux on it.
As someone who’s been through the Bay Area/ Silicon Valley Startup gauntlet, I can assure you that there are plenty of engineers who are deep in the AI koolaid.
Goddammit, Framework!
My experience is that OSS security scales upwards based on increased contributors, while commercial software is the inverse.
A small git* repo with a couple contributors is likely very insecure compared to one with 5000+. An enterprise tool from a company with 70 devs is probably far less bloated and insecure than one from a company with 1000 devs.
My 2 cents.
eh, using the “computer/ software engineers aren’t certified PEs so they’re LYING” things is such a silly argument. Government certification programs don’t dictate language, and easily half if not more of computer jobs are called “engineers” of some kind.
He called it a ‘film degree’, but it’s actually a 2-year broadcasting and cinematography diploma.
Sounds like a degree about filming stuff to me? Am I supposed to do some kind of elitist, “2-years? that’s not a real degree” thing?
This is nitpicky stuff, and I’m not sure why I’m supposed to dislike (or care at all about) this guy in the first place. The thumbnail literally calls the guy a fraud, but it just seems like the creator has an axe to grind.
Ah yes, all the kids chatting in the PR comments as they merge more porn into their git repos.
Clearly Australia has some savvy folks in charge.
(Hint: it’s actually in order to restrict access to code and tools to bypass censorship)
I think it’s macroscopy vs microscopy.
Food and nutrition and health is all “invisible” to you in a way that a car engine isn’t. To the average person, even hearing cellular functions explained sounds like magic, because it takes SO MUCH knowledge to get to the point where you can truly grok how a specific medicine works in the body.
That also explains why fuel additives are an area where that happens in cars. You can’t see the difference in e.g. AKI ratings in action. You can’t see summer vs winter fuel blend changes. So why isn’t it possible that this additive could do things you can’t see as well?
The Myth of the Self-Made Suitcase
Right, which is an argument that our current form of government is bad, not that censorship and loss of personal autonomy is good.
So 92 MILLION dollars on SQA and maybe some pentesting? Bullshit. Pentests run $50k-$400k for single-domain websites like this, and $400k is on the very expensive end.
Even if you paid 30 people $200k apiece for 4 years to work on this, which is more people and at higher salaries than would have happened, that would still only come to $24m, less than a third of the cited cost.
There is no possible way for this to have legitimately cost this much. There was corruption of some kind involved.