• bitofhope@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Mii@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • earthquake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • swlabr@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        roided Clippy

        idk the assets that came with my pirated word installs were better than today’s AI dreck

    • jaschop@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • spookex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        General purpose” mostly means LLMs. Companies have a year to write documentation and promise to follow copyright.

        Says it right there

          • Steve@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            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)

          • Architeuthis@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

        • bitofhope@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          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?