• Bio bronk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Some company’s own some wildly absurd things, copyright is only enforced if you have the money to do your own policing sometimes in multiple continents

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.

      They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        You miss the part where the copyright owner did not assign them the rights to use the material for such a purpose, and yes most copyright does cover a ton of stuff like retransmission, reproduction, public production and a bunch of other shit which is all separate license. It’s not so simple as “they did what a human does” because even the WAYS a human uses said material is limited under the terms of the copyright

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          But they didn’t use it for any of those purposes. Training an AI model isn’t doing any of that. Which do you think they did specifically?

          Humans can learn from any copyrighted material they want to. Copyright doesn’t, and can’t, prevent that.