At least it’s not slacking off anymore.

The “battle” is the result of copyright people trying to use open source people for their ends.

In the past, for software, the focus was completely on the terms of the license. If you look at OSI’s new definition, you will find no mention of that, despite the fact that common licenses in the AI world are not in line with traditional standards. The big focus is data, because that is what copyright people care about. AI trainers are supposed to provide extensive documentation on training data. That’s exactly the same demand that the copyright lobby managed to get into the european AI Act. They will use that to sue people for piracy.

Of course, what the copyright people really want is free money. They’re spreading the myth that training data is like source code and training like compiling. That may seem like a harmless, flawed analogy. But the implication is that the people who work and pay to do open source AI have actually done nothing except piracy. If they can convince judges or politicians who don’t understand the implications then this may cause a lot of damage.

Well, maybe it wouldn’t if it was gluten-free. Have you thought of that? No, you didn’t, you only think of yourself.

Masking was an issue during the Flue Pandemic 1918-1920. The date suggested by @Rolando@lemmy.world is more plausible.

via https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DuckDuckGo+AI+Chat&ia=chat&duckai=1 with GPT-4o mini

The FTC under Biden has begun to push back against tech monopolies.

Something as short as “Skywalker” can’t be copyrighted. You don’t need permission to use a trademark as long as you don’t harm the brand or confuse the customer. Since trademarks are often family names, there are a number of unrelated companies that operate under the same name but in a different business.

Or get a tenant with a higher wage?

The problem with this idea is that stats say that rents aren’t increasing faster than wages.

This isn’t sci-fi AI. It’s not going to use itself. It’s a new tool for digital artists, including VFX artists. I expect it will benefit them by making them more useful.

That’s what’s so depressing about lemmy. People convince me that there is some genuine issue that should be addressed. The mob grabs torches and pitchforks and goes to demand that… Money be given to rich people instead of changing anything. It certainly makes you understand why the world is as it is and that it will only become more so.

I see how I misunderstood.

This conception of individual rights seems rather ad hoc. I don’t think I could have guessed that that’s what you meant, rather than copyrights.

I don’t see the connection to copyright, in any case. How does fair use interfere with anyone’s right to earn a living? And if it does, why support the Internet Archive?

As far as I can tell, this community hates open models just as much as any others. Some seem to hate them even more. That’s the point about this “nightshade” tool.

I may not be understanding the logic here. It sounds like your issue is control. You want to have control over media you bought, and you want to have control over AI models rather than just a subscription.

There are a number of open models. As far as I can see, these are also largely rejected by this community. In lawsuits against their makers, the community also sides against fair use.

Why isn’t the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it’s current incarnation?

I’m not seeing anything remarkable from organized groups. For example, the Internet Archive and libraries favor strong fair use. The copyright industry obviously sees this as an opportunity to expand property rights against the public interest. Tech companies have always been on either side, depending on their particular interest. Basically, everyone is on the usual side, just as you’d expect. Only on social media are things kinda weird. I don’t think people are considering their own interests, but I really don’t get what drives this.

You have a corporation that doesn’t want to spend money to care for individual copyrights, or even lose customers over it. That describes ISPs. Still, people side with the corporation.

When you say individual rights, you, of course, mean copyrights; intellectual property rights. Giving property such a high priority is such a clash to the otherwise anti-capitalist attitudes here. It’s not just pro capitalist. It’s pro conservative capitalist.

I never understand how this community relates to copyright. It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned. Then the most dogmatic copyright maximalists come out It’s all anti-capitalist until AI is mentioned and then the most conservative, devout Ayn Rand followers show up.

Yes, I shouldn’t bother replying in these threads. In truth, I’ve already given up on this community but sometimes when I’m bored I can’t help a little peek. Maybe in a few years, some of the smarter ones will wonder why nothing ever came of this. Anyway, be careful with those AI detectors. They don’t work and sooner or later someone is going to get in trouble over that.

There is no problem with ingesting synthetic data. Well, at least none coming from the fact that it is synthetic. If there was a fundamental difference between the 1s and 0s encoding synthetic data and the 1s and 0s encoding any other data, then you could easily filter it. But there isn’t. The ideas that this community has are magical thinking.

How am I supposed to take seriously an article that misuses a basic term like “scraping”?