• myyass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        this is worse than you can imagine. Started college again. Syllabus says, you can’t use AI. Okay, login to the school website; starts with microslops email login to straight to chat gpt. Okay, need to search for something on the school website, here’s the schools AI search. Okay, answer a topic but we will check and grade it with various AI platforms. Okay, write things in your own words and then I get a 0/100 for doing so. I answered it correctly, exponentially better than the outdated class. So yeah, they can get bent. The best part was that the other students that used LLMs to regurgitate my answer differently. Maybe one less person working in cybersecurity is overall better and I’ll just go back to fixing stuff and watch it all get cooked.

  • TuringCompleteSocialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 days ago

    Peak capitalism, steal everything from the masses, remix and regurgitate it so no one is the wiser, then sell it back to them via a subscription model.

    Makes me sick.

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yeah, I wouldn’t be as upset if the playing field was level. Alright, you can slurp up and remix the world’s works, but so can anyone, for any reason, for free. Personally, I think use restrictions should only target commercial use, but I’m sure that’s a much more divisive topic. We have a law that is not being applied to those most likely to abuse it at scale.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Precendent was already there. Copyright has never been enforceable when it’s transformative. Collage is legal, so was training neural nets before the copyright industry saw money in it.

      • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        No one is saying they output of an llm is copyright (this is a different debate).

        What people are talking about is they stole copyright work. They pirated from torrent sights mass amounts of data. That’s the violation at problem.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          The output of the training, the model (LLM) itself, is transformative. I’m not talking about the output of the llm nor was the person I was responding to.

          The pirating issue has nothing to do with the current lawsuit (the New York Times one mentioned in the article) nor did the government mention it in the current context.

          That being said, I’m a pirate in my personal life, and I also think it’s kind of a necessary evil when it comes to building SOTA models. I wish we had a copy left solution to it, so you can use pirated data but need to open source it, so open source has a fighting chance and big AI can buy it if they want it. I’m okay with openAI and anthropic getting brought into court about it I guess, but the legislation ends up being market capture in their favor in the end.

          I understand the issues though, very “rule for thee but not for me” currently.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    7 days ago

    A follow up question, please:

    Q: So, what is illegal for an AI firm to do?

  • isekaihero@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 days ago

    Rules for thee, not for me.

    Pirating anything isn’t illegal anymore. If the government can pick and choose people and groups who don’t have to pay for patent or copyright, then there are no patents or copyrights.

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      To clarify, this is the government’s position, not the law. This hasn’t been officially ruled on yet.

      In a lawsuit that The New York Times filed against OpenAI, the Trump administration has contributed a 20-page brief in defense of the ChatGPT maker’s unlicensed use of copyrighted material to train its LLMs.

      However, it’s not looking promising in legal terms either.

  • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    This just in… I think I’m going to start training my own LLM on various movies, TV shows, and music. US government said it was ok.

  • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    So it’s eminent domain on other people’s copyrighted content?

    Gotta keep funneling money to those billionaires.

  • vathecka@lemmy.radio
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    Really cool how the supreme court doesnt give a shit about the law anymore and like half their rulings are “ik the law says we cant do this, but that would be really inconvenient so it doesnt matter”