Then it sounds like your business is a failure and should be shutdown.
Yeah! I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay for the ingredients, so I should be allowed to steal them. How else can I make money??
Alternatively:
OpenAI is no different from pirate streaming sites in this regard (loosely: streaming sites are way more useful to humanity). If OpenAI gets a pass, so should every site that’s been shut down for piracy.
If OpenAI wants a pass, then just like how piracy services make content freely open and available, they should make their models open.
Give me the weights, publish your datasets, slap on a permissive license.
If you’re not willing to contribute back to society with what you used from it, then you shouldn’t exist within society until you do so.
Piracy steals from the rich and gives to the poor. ChatGPT steals from the rich and the poor and keeps for itself.
No they shouldn’t. They should cease to exist
Good luck putting the cat back in the bag.
Generative AI is not going back into the bag. If not OpenAI, then someone else will control it. So we deal with them the next best way, force them to serve us, the people.
Then they can either pay for the copyrighted data they want to train on or lobby for copyright to be reigned in for everyone. Right now, they’re acting like entitled twats with a shit business model demanding they get a free pass while the rest of us would be bankrupted for downloading a Metallica MP3.
This is actually a very good comparison because restaurants use this argument all the time, except for wages:
“I can’t make money running my restaurant if I have to pay a living wage to my servers, so you should pay them with tips. How else can we stay open?”
These business that can’t operate profitably like any other business should fail.
In China, tipping is considered insulting because you are implying exactly that: that they are incapable of running their business without your donation.
K, so Google should be shut down too?
They can’t operate without scraping copyrighted data.
In every other circumstance I can think of, “I can’t make money doing a thing unless I break the law” means don’t do that thing.
Why should AI get special treatment?
Cool. If OpenAI gets a pass, then piracy should be legal, right? I mean what good is a trademark or copyright law?
Edit: “I can’t make money without stealing other people’s work” is definitely a take
then perish
If I was exempt from copyright, I too could easily make oodles of money
How do you like my new song? I call it “while my guitar gently weeps” , a real banger. the B side is a little holiday ditty I put together all by myself called “White Christmas” .
Sounds like an argument slave owners would use. “My plantation can’t make money without free labor!”
I’m going to start pirating again and if I ever get caught up I’ll just inform them I’m training AI models.
I can’t make money without using OpenAI’s paid products for free.
Checkmate motherfucker
If your company can’t exist without breaking the law, then it shouldn’t exist.
I disagree. Laws aren’t always moral. Texas could outlaw donations to the Rainbow Railroad and it would be wrong, the organization should still exist.
But in this case it is pretty clear that the plagiarism machine is in fact, bad and should not exist, at least not in it’s current form.
I feel like in that case one would be loudly fighting to get the law changed, rather than insisting it’s actually fine. Maybe that’s just semantics.
I don’t think the people who are supporters of jury nullification are saying such laws are fine.
Well, some laws are made to be broken, the question is whether this is one of them.
Boo fucking hoo. Everyone else has to make licensing agreements for this kind of shit, pay up.
“Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”
exactly which “needs” are they trying to meet?
shareholders’ needs, like greater valuation
Yeah it’s right up there on the list of what shareholders need to survive:
Water
Food
Solid CAGR of investment portfolio
Shelter
Human contact
Etc
(CAGR being Compound Annual Growth Rate)
The needs of corpo CEOs trying to cut jobs
Their internal monetary needs ofc!
Sounds awesome, let’s lobby for shorter copyrights! ~30 years feels more than reasonable.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law it simply is a criminal organisation. RICO act, anyone?
The law they’re breaking is civil, so they can only get sued; this is basically Napster. Also this case is is Britain, so RICO doesn’t apply.
If this is OK, downloading a movie to watch it, not to make any profit, is OK, right? If it isn’t, will they get fined proportionally to the people who get fined for downloading a movie?
They do want to make a profit though…
some countries this is actually legal, it’s just the redistributing part that is illegal
note: I’m oversimplifying here, the countries that allow for downloading aren’t actually letting you have it for free, it’s under the basis that you’ve already purchased one form of the movie and you are downloading it so you can preserve what you have purchased already
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law
…then it doesn’t deserve to be in business.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law
I mean, which law? If Altman was selling shrooms or some blow that hasn’t been stepped on a dozen times, I might be willing to cut him some slack. At least that wouldn’t add a few million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere.
Then OpenAI shouldn’t exist. That’s capitalism.
Hey, me either. I guess I can steal too.
