2 ms·
Good. Everyone gets big mad when someone with money acts like Aaron Swartz did. The only bad thing about OpenAI is that they're not actually open sourcing or o
by Der_Einzige 2y ago
Good.
Everyone gets big mad when someone with money acts like Aaron Swartz did. The only bad thing about OpenAI is that they're not actually open sourcing or open accessing their stuff. Mistral or Llama "training on pirated material" is literally a feature, not a bug and the tears from all the artists and others who get mad are delicious. These same artists would profess literal radical marxism but become capitalist luddite copyright trolls the moment that the means of intellectual production became democratized against their will.
If you posted something on the internet, I can and will put it into ipadapter and take your style and use it for my own interests. You cannot stop me except by not posting it where I can access it. That is the burden of posting anything on the public internet. You opt out by not doing it.
- amiantos 2y agoIt is comical to me how fast the anti-RIAA internet turned into a bunch of copyright maximalists who expect organizations like the RIAA to protect them in some way. In actuality, if someone manages to weaponize copyright against AI, it will only successfully be used by massive rights holders to extract payouts from AI companies and none of the money will be given to any of the creatives, and creatives will naturally still not be very happy about it. Spotify 1.0 is right holders streaming your content and paying you fractions of pennies for it, "Spotify 2.0" will be them licensing your content to AI companies and paying you a fraction of a fraction of a penny just once.
- tehjoker 2y agoSuch a weird argument. A company doing the same thing as Aaron Swartz is doing it for personal gain, not for our collective benefit.