It's so ridiculous when corporations steal everyone's work for their own profit, no one bats an eye but when a group of individuals do the same to make education and knowledge free for everyone it's somehow illegal, unethical, immoral and what not.
What really breaks the suspension of disbelief in this reality of ours is that fucking advertising is the most privacy invasive activity in the world. Seriously, even George Orwell would call bullshit on that.
Make the AI folks use public domain training data or nothing and maybe we'll see the "life of the author + 75 years" bullshit get scaled back to something reasonable.
By freeing published scholarship from the chains of toll access and copyright protection and making them freely available to all, it can feel like you are helping a Robin Hood figure rob from the rich and give to the poor.
It goes on to explain potential security issues, but it doesn't even try to attack the concept of freely providing academic papers to begin with.
I'm starting to think the term "piracy" is morally neutral. The act can be either positive or negative depending on the context. Unfortunately, the law does not seem to flow from morality, or even the consent of the supposed victims of this piracy.
this is because the technocrats are allowed to steal from you, but when you steal from them what they've stolen from actual researchers that's a problem
This is different. AI as a transformative tech is going to usher the US economy into the next boom of prosperity. The AI revolution will change the world and allow people to decide if they want to work for money or not (read UBI). In case you haven't caught on, am being sarcastic.
All this despite ChatGPT being a total complete joke.
Oh OpenAI is just as illegal as SciHub. More so because they're making money off of stolen IP. It's just that the Oligarchs get to pick and choose. So of course they choose the arrangement that gives them more control over knowledge.
OpenAI isn't really proven as legal. They claim it is, and it's very difficult to mount a challenge, but there definitely is an argument that they have no fair use protection - their "research" is in fact development of a commercial product.
The IP system, which goes to great lengths to block things like open-access scientific publications, is borked borked borked borked borked.
If OpenAI and other generative AI projects are the means by which we finally break it so we can have culture and a public domain again, well, we had to nail Capone with tax evasion.
Yes, industrialists want to use AI [exactly they way they want to use every other idea -- plausible or not] to automate more of their industries so they can pay fewer people less money for more productivity. And this is a problem of which generative AI figures centrally, but it's not really all that new, and eventually we're going to have to force our society to recognize that it works for the public and not money. I don't think AI is going to break the system and lead us to communist revolution ( The owning class will tremble...! ) But eventually it will be 1789 all over again. Or we'll crush the fash and realize the only way we can get the fash to not come back is by restoring and extending FDR's new deal.
I am skeptical the latter can happen without piles of elite heads and rivers of politician blood.
Yeah, but did SciHub pay Nigerians a pittance to look at and read about child rape? Because- wait, I have no idea what I'm even arguing. Fuck OpenAI though.
Kind of a strawman, I'd like everything to be FOSS, and if we keep Capitalism (which we shouldn't), it should be HEAVILY regulated not the laissez-faire corporatocracy / oligarchy we have now.
I don't want any for-profit capitalists to have any control of AI. It should all be owned by the public and all productive gains from it taxed at 100%. But open source AI models, right on.
I got to spend all day at a sci-fi convention at a table next to Richard Hatch of Battlestar Galactica fame (the 1970s version). Every so often, someone would come by and not quite get his name right and I would tell them he was Dirk Benedict. He got a kick out of it. Also, once I told a woman, "don't call him Dirk Benedict. He gets real mad." If I had had a photo of Dirk Benedict, I would totally have asked him to sign it.
Yes, because 1:1 duplication of copy written works violates copyright, but summaries of those works and relaying facts stated in those works is perfectly legal (by an ai or not).