2 ms·
>It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. "have their cake and eat it too" allegations only work if yo
by gruez 2y ago
>It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
"have their cake and eat it too" allegations only work if you're talking about the same entity. The copyright maximalist corporations (ie. publishers) aren't the same as the permissive ones (ie. AI companies). Making such characterizations make as much sense as saying "citizens don't get to eat their cake and eat it too", when referring to the fact that citizens are anti-AI, but freely pirate movies.
- _aavaa_ 2y agoYes they are. Look at what happened when deepseek came out. Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony
- gruez 2y ago>Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony Can you link to the exact comments he made? My impression was that he was upset at the fact that they broke T&C of openai, and deepseek's claim of being much cheaper to train than openai didn't factor in the fact that it requried openai's model to bootstrap the training process. Neither of them directly contradict the claim that training is copyright infringement.
- rubslopes 2y agoAnother example: Microsoft suing pirated Windows distributors.