5 ms·

Probably not. Who cares at this point? No one is stopping ML sets from being primarily pirated. The current power is effectively dismantling copyright for AI r

by mouse_ 1y ago

Probably not. Who cares at this point? No one is stopping ML sets from being primarily pirated. The current power is effectively dismantling copyright for AI related work.

perching_aix 1y ago
> The current power is effectively dismantling copyright for AI related work. Out of the loop apparently, could you elaborate? By "the current power" I take you mean the current US administration?
- bgwalter 1y ago
  Trump fired the head of the copyright office: https://www.heise.de/en/news/After-criticism-of-AI-training-practices-Trump-fires-head-of-copyright-office-10379873.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/After-criticism-of-AI-training-... The "Big Beautiful Bill" contains a clause that prohibits state "AI" legislation. Trump has a "Crypto and AI czar" who is very active in promoting "AI" on his YouTube propaganda outlet. The same czar also promoted, pre-election of course, accelerated peace with Russia and then stopped talking about the subject altogether.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    Oh wow okay, genuinely missed these. Thanks.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
snickerdoodle12 1y ago
> Who cares at this point Anyone who has a shred of integrity. I'm not a fan of overreaching copyright laws, but they've been strictly enforced for years now. Decades, even. They've ruined many lives, like how they killed Aaron Swartz. But now, suddenly, violating copyright is totally okay and carries no consequences whatsoever because the billionaires decided that's how they can get richer now? If you want to even try to pretend you don't live in a plutocracy and that the rule of law matters at all these developments should concern you.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  Aaron Swartz died of suicide, not copyright. His death was a tragedy but it wasn't done to him.
  - marcus_holmes 1y ago
    There's an English phrase "hounded to death", meaning that someone was pursued and hassled until they died. It doesn't specify the cause of death, but I think the assumption would be suicide, since you can't actually die of fatigue. I think that's what was done to Aaron Swartz.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Many people have dealt with the law, with copyright infringement, even with gross amounts of it, and had the book thrown at them, and survived the experience. Swartz was ill. It is a tragedy he did not survive the experience, and indeed, trial is very stressful. But he was no more hounded than any defendant who comes under federal scrutiny and has to defend themselves in a court of law via the trial system. Kevin Mitnick spent a year in prison (first incarceration) and survived it. Swartz was offered six months and committed suicide. I don't know how much we should change of the system to protect the Aaron Swartzs of the world; that's the mother of all Chesterton's Fences.
      - shiroiuma 1y ago
        Maybe someone should throw you in prison for a year on some BS made-up charges to see how well you survive it. We can use it as a data point for your argument.
      - marcus_holmes 1y ago
        Many people get (for example) pneumonia and recover. Some people get pneumonia and die. The people who died of pneumonia died because of pneumonia. The fact that other people survived it doesn't mean that they didn't die of it. Saying that we should not work on cures for pneumonia because it's a Chesterton Fence is obviously, blatantly, illogical. Saying that we should change the system so that government officials working for moneyed interests can't hound someone to death is similarly illogical.

by mouse_ 1y ago

Probably not. Who cares at this point? No one is stopping ML sets from being primarily pirated. The current power is effectively dismantling copyright for AI related work.

perching_aix 1y ago

> The current power is effectively dismantling copyright for AI related work. Out of the loop apparently, could you elaborate? By "the current power" I take you mean the current US administration?

bgwalter 1y ago
Trump fired the head of the copyright office: https://www.heise.de/en/news/After-criticism-of-AI-training-practices-Trump-fires-head-of-copyright-office-10379873.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/After-criticism-of-AI-training-... The "Big Beautiful Bill" contains a clause that prohibits state "AI" legislation. Trump has a "Crypto and AI czar" who is very active in promoting "AI" on his YouTube propaganda outlet. The same czar also promoted, pre-election of course, accelerated peace with Russia and then stopped talking about the subject altogether.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  Oh wow okay, genuinely missed these. Thanks.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

snickerdoodle12 1y ago

> Who cares at this point Anyone who has a shred of integrity. I'm not a fan of overreaching copyright laws, but they've been strictly enforced for years now. Decades, even. They've ruined many lives, like how they killed Aaron Swartz. But now, suddenly, violating copyright is totally okay and carries no consequences whatsoever because the billionaires decided that's how they can get richer now? If you want to even try to pretend you don't live in a plutocracy and that the rule of law matters at all these developments should concern you.

shadowgovt 1y ago
Aaron Swartz died of suicide, not copyright. His death was a tragedy but it wasn't done to him.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  There's an English phrase "hounded to death", meaning that someone was pursued and hassled until they died. It doesn't specify the cause of death, but I think the assumption would be suicide, since you can't actually die of fatigue. I think that's what was done to Aaron Swartz.
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Many people have dealt with the law, with copyright infringement, even with gross amounts of it, and had the book thrown at them, and survived the experience. Swartz was ill. It is a tragedy he did not survive the experience, and indeed, trial is very stressful. But he was no more hounded than any defendant who comes under federal scrutiny and has to defend themselves in a court of law via the trial system. Kevin Mitnick spent a year in prison (first incarceration) and survived it. Swartz was offered six months and committed suicide. I don't know how much we should change of the system to protect the Aaron Swartzs of the world; that's the mother of all Chesterton's Fences.
    - shiroiuma 1y ago
      Maybe someone should throw you in prison for a year on some BS made-up charges to see how well you survive it. We can use it as a data point for your argument.
    - marcus_holmes 1y ago
      Many people get (for example) pneumonia and recover. Some people get pneumonia and die. The people who died of pneumonia died because of pneumonia. The fact that other people survived it doesn't mean that they didn't die of it. Saying that we should not work on cures for pneumonia because it's a Chesterton Fence is obviously, blatantly, illogical. Saying that we should change the system so that government officials working for moneyed interests can't hound someone to death is similarly illogical.