Technology

37801 readers

333 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

237

OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)

submitted 11 months ago by sculd@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apparently, stealing other people's work to create product for money is now "fair use" as according to OpenAI because they are "innovating" (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit "misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

Photography did "compete" with paintings, or rather, it killed off a very common job for artists which was portraits, landscapes and, to an extent, still lifes. It sparked a whole revolution of (ultra) realistic painting by giving favour to art forms that weren't able to be recreated by photography. For example expressionism became much more liked.

People often mention Photography or Photoshop even as comparable to the current situation. But I think it's not comparable at all.

As you can see from the discussions AI changes how (some) people think about what art is. But not in the way of "let's do art differently" but more like "Artists aren't really doing anything different than what AI does".

I also think it's a different situation because AI attacks artists of many different genres all at ones. You can't just slightly move a different style or art form because AI targets practically everything. With 3D printing etc. not even sculpting is safe.