359
submitted 9 months ago by aprnu@feddit.ch to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 63 points 9 months ago

"We didn't do it, and if we did it was fair use, and if it wasn't progress will be hampered if rules and regulations are too strict."

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 45 points 9 months ago

Nationalize AI or tax it to fund UBI, and none of this is an issue.

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Best idea I've heard in a year. Automation should benefit humanity as a whole.

[-] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

AI is just too much of a hype. Every company invests millions into AI and all new products need to "have AI". And then everybody also needs to file lawsuits. I mean rightly so if Meta just pirated the books, but that's not a problem with AI, but plain old piracy.

I was pretty sure OpenAI or Meta didn't license gigabytes of books correctly for use in their commercial products. Nice that Meta now admitted to it. I hope their " Fair Use" argument works and in the future we can all "train AI" with our "research dataset" of 40GB of ebooks. Maybe I'm even going to buy another harddisk and see if I can train an AI on 6 TB of tv series, all marvel movies and a broad mp3 collection.

Btw, there was no denying anyways. Meta wrote a scientific paper about their LLaMA model in march of last year. And they clearly listed all of their sources, including Books3. Other companies aren't that transparent. And even less so as of today.

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 29 points 9 months ago

I do wonder how it shakes out. If the case establishes that a license to use the material should be acquired for copyrighted material, then maybe the license I'm setting on comments might bring commercial AI companies in hot water too - which I'd love. Opensource AI models FTW

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 9 points 9 months ago

That license would require the AI model to only output content under the same license. Not sure if you realize, but commercial use is part of the OpenSource definition:

https://opensource.org/osd/

Your content would just get filtered out from any training dataset.

As for going against commercial companies... maybe you are a lawyer, otherwise good luck paying the fees.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Welp, whole trained dataset got DMCAed, right? And a nonsensical fine, right?

[-] msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 9 months ago

ohno my copyright!!!! How will the publisher megacorps now make a record quarter??? Think of the shareholders!

That's not the take away you should be having here, it's that a mega Corp felt that they should be allowed to create new content from someone else's work, both without their permission and without paying

[-] msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 9 months ago

ok, fair; but do consider the context that the models are open weight. You can download them and use them for free.

There is a slight catch though which I’m very annoyed at: it’s not actually Apache. It’s this weird license where you can use the model commercially up until you have 700M Monthly users, which then you have to request a custom license from meta. ok, I kinda understand them not wanting companies like bytedance or google using their models just like that, but Mistral has their models on Apache-2.0 open weight so the context should definitely be reconsidered, especially for llama3.

It’s kind of a thing right now- publishers don’t want models trained on their books, „because it breaks copyright“ even though the model doesn’t actually remember copyrighted passages from the book. Many arguments hinge on the publishers being mad that you can prompt the model to repeat a copyrighted passage, which it can do. IMO this is a bullshit reason

anyway, will be an interesting two years as (hopefully) copyright will get turned inside out :)

I really have to thank you for an educated response

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] Beardedsausag3@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago

Nope. Yer can feck off Zuck! Yer ain't comin' aboard my ship! 🏴‍☠️

[-] howrar@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

I'm pretty sure "admits" implies an attempt to hide it. They've explicitly said in the model's initial publication that the training set includes Books3.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

In the age of the internet, nothing is truly yours.

Just look at NFT'S

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 9 points 9 months ago
[-] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 months ago

they aren't, except perhaps as a counterexample of some dubious sort

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

They were supposedly anchors to claim ownership of things in the real world.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

They're fancy receipts, and if people thought of them as just that it might be a technology with some limited non-monetary uses. But, the crypto grift was too strong.

[-] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

They sold snake oil nothing else.

[-] Banzai51@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

This is the least shocking revelation.

this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
359 points (98.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54420 readers
262 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS