• Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sounds like they’re desperate to convince people that copyright law shouldn’t apply to only them. Sorry, but that’s not going to work. License the content you’re making money from, or don’t use it.

    • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Possibly. On the other hand, OpenAI’s market cap is bigger than the ten largest publishers combined - despite their whining they can afford to. It’s not OpenAI that will be prevented from getting training data - the biggest impact will be that it might stop smaller competitors and prevent open-source models.

      • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I couldn’t care less what their market cap is, it’s a scam. Ponzi schemes are incredibly valuable until they aren’t

        This BS is an obvious attempt to astroturf Lemmy for the benefit of a corporation, and anybody falling for it is an easy mark.

        • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Lol, what. OpenAI shares aren’t available - there’d be no benefit to anyone trying to pump them.

          • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            …except if they IPO or someone sells their shares on the secondary market. You can sell shares without being on a public exchange. Not doing much to dissuade me from my opinion that this is all a shitty effort at Open AI astroturfing.

            • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Except if they were it’d be well known, and no startup typically has contracts that doesn’t involve approvals for secondary sales at this kind of early stage because increasing the number of people on the cap table enough triggers nearly the same reporting requirements as being public, and is a massive burden. Just doesn’t work that way.

              It’s also hilarious that you take posting an article that is at best neutral, with a message of doom and gloom about risks to their business, on Lemmy is something OpenAI would have any interest in. If I wanted to pump OpenAI there are better places to do it, and more positive spins to put on it.

  • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    What human author hasn’t read and been inspired by existing copyrighted works?

    It’s not even that uncommon for humans to accidentally copy them too closely later on.

    • polyploy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Machines don’t have inspiration, they are not people. They do not make decisions based upon artistic choice or aesthetic preference or half-remembered moments, they are plagiarism machines trained on millions of protected works designed for the explicit purpose of putting all those who created what it copies out of work.

      In a vacuum AI tools are as harmless and benign as you want them to be, but in reality they are disastrously harmful to the environment to train, and they are already ruining the livelihoods of human creators who actually make art.

      • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Whenever I see them described as “plagiarism machines”, odds are about 99% that the person using the term have no idea how these models work. Like with humans, they can overfit, but most of what they output will have have far less in common with any individual work than levels of imitations people engage in without being accused of plagiarism all the time.

        As for the environmental effects, it’s a totally ridiculous claim - the GPUs used to train even the top of the line ChatGPT models adds up to a tiny rounding error of the power use of even middling online games, and training has only gotten more efficient since.

        E.g. researchers at Oak Ridge National Labs published a paper in December after having trained a GPT4 scale model with only 3k GPUs on the Frontier supercomputer using Megatron-DeepSpeed. 3k GPUs is about 8% of Frontiers capacity, and while Frontier is currently fastest, there are hundreds of supercomputers at that kind of scale publicly known about, and many more that are not. Never mind the many millions of GPUs not part of any supercomputer.

    • neoinvin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nothing wrong with humans doing it. It’s yet to be determined whether machines should be able to.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I fully agree with you. I mean, even search engines are fully reliant on the ingest and storage of copyrighted material.

      Of course the elephant in the room is how do we stop multi-billion dollar companies from advancing the technology significantly enough to put artists, programmers, writers and the like out of business.

      • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can’t. The cat is out of the bag. The algorithms are well understood, and new papers on ways to improve output of far smaller models come out every day. It’s just a question of time before training competitive models will be doable for companies in a whole range of jurisdictions entirely unlikely to care.