Technology

37801 readers

207 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

229

Technologist: 'Fining Big Tech isn't working, make them give away illegally trained LLMs as public domain' (www.theregister.com)

submitted 2 days ago by thelucky8@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived link

Opinionated article by Alexander Hanff, a computer scientist and privacy technologist who helped develop Europe's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and ePrivacy rules.

We cannot allow Big Tech to continue to ignore our fundamental human rights. Had such an approach been taken 25 years ago in relation to privacy and data protection, arguably we would not have the situation we have to today, where some platforms routinely ignore their legal obligations at the detriment of society.

Legislators did not understand the impact of weak laws or weak enforcement 25 years ago, but we have enough hindsight now to ensure we don’t make the same mistakes moving forward. The time to regulate unlawful AI training is now, and we must learn from mistakes past to ensure that we provide effective deterrents and consequences to such ubiquitous law breaking in the future.

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

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you take that image, copy it and then try to resell it for profit you'll find you're quickly in breach of copyright.

The LLM is, in most cases, being licensed out to users for a profit off of the input data without which it could not exist in its current form.

You could see it akin to plagiarism if you think ctrl+c, ctrl+v is too extreme.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you take that image, copy it and then try to resell it for profit you’ll find you’re quickly in breach of copyright.

That's not what's happening. Did you even read my comment?

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, if you ignore the hyperbole of my pre-christmas stress aggressive start, how much of the rest do you disagree with?

Less combatitively, I'm of the stance that just make AI generated materials exempt from copyright and you'll at least limit mass adoption in public facing things by big money. Doesn't address all the issues, though.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

AI-generated materials are already exempt from copyright. It falls under the same arguments as the monkey selfie. Which is great.

Crack copyright like a fucking egg. It only benefited the rich, anyway.

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago

That's good, and I'm glad to have been informed of it.

Thank you.

My copyright change is the 17 years from first publication. Feels maybe still a little long, but much better than what we have now.