• melitele@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 minutes ago

    I dont know why but this is all so funny and ridicolous to me.

    Infuriating too, but so ridicolous. Like, capitalism is proving how much it sucks for it to need to go against its own rules. Like it always did this but now it is so pathetically clear.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    39 minutes ago

    I support the destruction of copyright. Humanity should have free access to media, be it for enhancing their commercial products or for individuals to develop their personhood.

    • neuromorph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      We need to remove any copyright from whatever is developed by the AI companies.

      If the AI can use copyrighted material without compensating the owners, then it should be free for everyone to use/own the content AI creates

  • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    So the amend alleges, Nvidia having used/stored/copied/obtained/distributed copyrighted works (including plaintiffs’), both through databases available on Hugging Face (‘Books3’ featured in both ‘The Pile’ and ‘SlimPajama’), or pirating from shadow libraries (like Anna’s Archive), to train multiple LLMs (primarily their ‘NeMo Megatron’ series), and distributing the copyrighted data through the ‘NeMo Megatron Framework’; data which was ultimately sourced from shadow libraries.

    It’s quite an interesting read actually, especially the link to this Anna’s Archive blog post. Which it grossly pulls out of context, as plaintiffs clearly despise the shadow libraries too: as they have ultimately provided access to their copyrighted material.

    Especially the part: “Most (but not all!) US-based companies reconsidered once they realized the illegal nature of our work. By contrast, Chinese firms have enthusiastically embraced our collection, apparently untroubled by its legality.” makes me wonder if that’s the reason why models like Deepseek, initially blew Western models out of the water.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      You can ask deepseek detailed questions about Harry Potter books and it responds intelligently with (almost) quotes from the book.

      Ask chatGPT and it will respond to questions but denys it has read any book.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Interesting, I was using Deepseek for book recommendations and it was exceptionally good at recommending books that are similar to one I just read compared to other models.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    199
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Allegedly most valuable company on the planet in all of history (can’t afford books). Allegedly not a bubble or fraud.

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Sadly I think it’s more that there isn’t really a standard way to buy books and other media in bulk at the scale of which AI training usually requires. So the companies realise they can save both time and money in just pirating after calculating the fine risk. Its just a bonus that they usually get away with it and that the fines would likely be cheaper than a legit transaction. But i do think it’s the bulk data packaging that makes piracy look more attractive to them at the get-go.

      Heck, even video game publishers often source their roms for their official re-releases from pirated copies because pirates are better at preserving data and keeping it in a nice friendly format. Easier to search for it on the web and download it then it is too goo into their own archives and rip it themselves, if they even still have original copies, cause they sure as hell didn’t keep their source code.

      • amzd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        There is also no standard way of buying a DRM free epub for personal use so I’m fine downloading them from Anna too :)

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, no, this genuinely doesn’t make sense as there are legitimate repositories for these books and can do business-to-business negotiations for access to them. Even libraries have access to ebooks at bulk scale.

        • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Those kinds of negotiations if they haven’t been done by other companies before, they won’t have a process for it already in place. There’d be lots of friction for the first of such deal. Both in lots of legal work and software development to make sure they only get access relevant to the deal made.

          It’s not something they can just be like “hey, here’s the FTP URI”. Because these legitimate repositories you speak of, like Amazon I guess, will already have existing deals with publishers. Currently as they stand, these deals may not be compatible with Amazon sharing their IP with other companies. So they will either have to redo those deals or restrict access of specific titles to the likes of Nvidia.

          • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            58 minutes ago

            Ah yes, of course, the legal challenges of selling a copy of a book that is literally for sale 🙄🙄🙄

            Yeah the existing deal with publishers is “sell my book”, dummy. And no, there is no real software development work because you have genuinely no idea what you’re talking about if you think it’s not already just sitting in an S3 bucket with a database mapping it by those different publishers and deals. Again, even libraries have a database system that could handle this

            How do you think it works when an individual buys one book? A lawyer and software developer sit down to figure out the terms and conditions and overcome the technical challenge of finding that book in their computer system?

            • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              38 minutes ago

              The development work I mentioned it you actually read it was about ensuring that specific access is given at the scale in which they need.

              Plus the legal challenge is not about the singular copies of books but for it to be in a state that is suitable for the ingestion of data which would likely mean giving them specifically DRM free versions which I imagine some book publishers would scowl at.

              • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                24 minutes ago

                Keep moving those goalposts! Eventually you’ll be “right” and saved face.

                Yeah totally, I guess their only option is to pirate the books then, it’s not like NVIDIA has access to OCR or anything 🙄

    • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      Are you suggesting that there is a use case for piracy that has less to do with saving money than it does with convenience and easy access to media in one place?

  • brokenwing@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    AA might be digging their own grave. Overtime the knowledge gets accumulated in the hands of a select few and then they’re gonna block people from accessing pirated sites like AA or even worse, AA gets shutdown due to lack of traffic.

    • Cherry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s a really good thought. IMO what they will be producing with AI wont be knowledge it will be slop.

      There is always gonna be an indie writer, a local at the pub singing. They cant stop people creating. Download or buy analog of the stuff you like and store it. We don’t have to be a slave to the mainstream dream…i will say though its hard changing habits…but for me, it starts with me.

    • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s not stealing when corpos do it.

      Meta torrented their training data from the pirate bay. Hell, Spotify initially built their catalog from pirated music. They all do this shit. Corporations are built to steal our shit and sell it back to us. This isn’t any different from pumping oil out of pubic lands and selling it back to us.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        wish meta had torrented all the viruses, too, would be fun to read the news of “facebook and instagram are offline as meta suffers from cyberattack”

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          In his June ruling, Judge Alsup agreed with Anthropic’s argument, stating the company’s use of books by the plaintiffs to train their AI model was acceptable.

          “The training use was a fair use,” he wrote. “The use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative.”

          However, the judge ruled that Anthropic’s use of millions of pirated books to build its models – books that websites such as Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) copied without getting the authors’ consent or giving them compensation – was not.

          Pirating isn’t but training on copyrighted works is fair use, you just have to buy them.

        • jim3692@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I was referring to Altman lobbying towards considering AI training as fair use of copyrighted material.

          I know that pirating is not fair use. However, AI companies seem to rely on pirated copies to train their slop machines, and they are trying to justify this behavior.

      • rafoix@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        A business is not fair use. They’re taking someone’s intellectual property and using it to make their product useful.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Seems strange. Anna’s Archive makes their collection available for bulk download as torrent files, they shouldn’t need to “cut a deal” for access to that. Just download the torrent and now you’ve got the whole collection available locally.

  • Flowers Galore@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Hmm so nvidia is training llms as well. Are they going to compete with their customers now too? Like anthropic and cursor?

    Good. Can’t wait for the bubble to pop.

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    So we can assume that in the future, only slob written by LLMs will be available. I mean, who would be willing to spend hundreds of hours writing a book when even huge corporations that earn billions from it won’t pay the author a single dime?

    • Cherry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The trick is not to pay a dime to read it. Even producing Ai slop has a cost. If no one pays for that it must leave a negative.

      Stop buying. Or If you have to buy old stuff second hand. There’s already a surplus.

      Alternatively piracy is clearly condoned here so again don’t buy.

    • dukemirage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why should this development stop at books? There are already generated books available, mostly children’s books (no one’s thinking about them now).

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        This development will certainly not end with books - countless other creative and intellectual achievements have long been affected. That is precisely the problem with generative models, whether they involve text, code, video, images, or whatever else. All of this boils down to the fact that the already precarious situation for everyone who creates value by themselves is continuing to deteriorate. Professional work in all these areas will undoubtedly become even more precarious in the future, with artists, designers, and writers, who were already in a difficult position, now being joined by industries such as software development and administrative work.

        Please don’t get me wrong: I am anything but a technology pessimist, but the business model of the so-called AI companies is so exploitative and their owners so unscrupulous that, given the status quo (cloud models), I can hardly imagine that this will lead to even halfway fair working conditions or remuneration models for people who create value in the form of intellectual achievements. I mean, this post is a vivid example.