if my product was labelled “general purpose” I’d consider that a slur
that’s sad (or delusion).
can it be both?
Yeah nah, fuck copyright, we should be making it weaker and not stronger
Sure, but this isn’t about making copyright stricter, but just making it explicit that the existing law applies to AI tech.
I’m very critical of copyright law, but letting specifically big tech pretend like they’re not distributing derivative work because it’s derived from billions of works on the internet is not the gateway to copyright abolition I’d hope to see.
There are many good reasons to be critical of copyright, especially because it has been abused so much. Allowing big tech grifters unlimited access to everything everyone ever puts online because they promise to “democratize art” when all they really do it feed it into their spicy autocomplete engines which then flood the internet with AI sludge is not one of them.
Especially when the same fucking people then do a 180 and want protection for the shit their roided Clippy puked out.
feed it into their spicy autocomplete engines which then flood the internet with AI sludge
I’m getting a mental image of a wood chipper: a word chipper.
roided Clippy
idk the assets that came with my pirated word installs were better than today’s AI dreck
They were tailored, and surprisingly thorough.
In the last few years I’ve gone through an old lexicon, my grandfather’s book about building cabins, and I studied halfway through an old SolidWorks training book and I’ve been well surprised by how good the quality is. The detail they go into and the quality of illustrations gets very high.
It has left me with a feeling that the past generation were far better at making teaching material, Clippy isn’t the greatest example of that but he was a result of their generation’s thinking about how to teach. We’ve left a lot of it up to YouTube and other solo efforts, and we’ve completely resigned ourselves to accepting that the books required in higher education are more scam than they are instructive.
This isn’t a copyright thing. This is a tech regulation thing, that creates the possibility for data protection agencies to stick their noses in AI company’s business.
General purpose” mostly means LLMs. Companies have a year to write documentation and promise to follow copyright.
Says it right there
how does allowing the ai companies to ignore copyright improve the situation, pray tell?
Next time Lars Ulrich sues you you’ll be able to say you needed the Some Kind of Monster mp3s for AI research. It’s foolproof.
Takes me much less than a year to promise to do anything.
I love how the time factor is always ignored when tech companies eventually comply with regulation or just do the right thing. “at least they did it” isn’t an argument, it’s a consolation.
It took airbnb over a year(!) to show all the fees up front on the search results page instead of waiting to show them on the checkout page. That’s over a year after their asshat CEO announced on twitter that they would be doing it (to quell the social media uproar about how deceptive it was)
This quote got me rent free. If I break a law I don’t like for a couple of years, do I also get another year to “promise” to stop breaking it in the future?
you’ve got to say more than that
Stronger but shorter, please.
