Technology

37706 readers

348 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

[email protected]

Amazon- and Google-backed AI firm Anthropic says “general-purpose AI tools simply could not exist” if AI companies had to pay licences for the training material (www.computerweekly.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) company Anthropic has claimed to a US court that using copyrighted content in large language model (LLM) training data counts as “fair use”, however.

Under US law, “fair use” permits the limited use of copyrighted material without permission, for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

In October 2023, a host of music publishers including Concord, Universal Music Group and ABKCO initiated legal action against the Amazon- and Google-backed generative AI firm Anthropic, demanding potentially millions in damages for the allegedly “systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrighted song lyrics”.

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not fine with anything meta does and I'm not ok putting creatives out of work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But you're all for stealing content willy-nilly?

And this is being offered to people without it being a privately owned blackbox licensed out for money.

Feels kinda inconsistent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Feels kinda inconsistent.

Perfectly consistent. Seeming otherwise is down to a failure to grasp my position, not any inconsistency of the positions themselves.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If you steal content from creatives, does that not put them out of work?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is a difference between an individual pirating a movie and a huge private company pirating a movie and then reselling it to people.

You can debate the morality or social impacts of the former, but it is a very different question than the later.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

So it’s okay when they steal content and drive it away to people for free?

Ex. Facebook gives away their LLM model for free.

Llama 2 is available for free for research and commercial use.

https://ai.meta.com/llama/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I do not think it is ok when a large company throws a bunch of other people’s data and content in to a wood chipper and then gives away the wood chips to get more people using their services.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

No. Building a box that replaces them does that.