I don’t understand what the issue here is? Are people upset that companies that own the AI will churn profit from the free data available on the Internet for them to be trained on?
If so, this is a hypocritical double standard. We use the Internet for the free information ourselves. We train ourselves but if a company does it for AI all of the sudden all that free information suddenly needs to be paid for because it’s an incorporated institution?
Y’all need to figure out how free you want this content to be because there’s no in-between.
If the authors of the information wanted to get paid they wouldn’t submit their intellectual property to a website that provides said information for free.
Like I said either everyone pays or no one does. You can’t have it both ways.
Actually I’ll tell you how this is going to work. Sites like Wikipedia, GitHub, stack overflow, ext will have to force every one of their users to open a personal account and conduct constant verifications to make sure they’re not AI’s.
From what I’ve seen on the internet people don’t like this.
So again it can’t be both, either it’s all free or it’s all paid for. There is no in between.
Look, I know what you want to happen here and I even agree with it on the surface. Cooperations need to pay their fair share and many of them don’t. But I don’t think you understand the implications of what you’re asking for.
Let the AI’s learn for free because in a few years it won’t matter anyway.
We’re on the precipice of a technological singularity and hopefully in our lifetimes the function of a monetary economy will no longer be relevant.
I don’t understand what the issue here is? Are people upset that companies that own the AI will churn profit from the free data available on the Internet for them to be trained on?
If so, this is a hypocritical double standard. We use the Internet for the free information ourselves. We train ourselves but if a company does it for AI all of the sudden all that free information suddenly needs to be paid for because it’s an incorporated institution?
Y’all need to figure out how free you want this content to be because there’s no in-between.
exactly. if a human painter looks at a bunch of posted images to practice with, it’s okay. If a computer does it, it’s evil.
Both the human artist and the computer eventually create something someone wants to pay for, and neither paid for looking at other people’s art.
it’s a double standard.
That’s the line. Free for people. Not free for companies.
Right but that’s the thing. You can’t have it both ways. Either the information is free or it isn’t.
If it is offered for free who queries that information should be irrelevant.
I believe it to be relevant, and so do many of the authors of the “information.”
If the authors of the information wanted to get paid they wouldn’t submit their intellectual property to a website that provides said information for free.
Like I said either everyone pays or no one does. You can’t have it both ways.
How about this. Either everyone pays, or no one does, or only some of them have to pay - depending on their use.
This all-or-nothing is a false dichotomy. Like look at how much software is free for small scale users or educational or non-profit orgs.
And how exactly would this work?
Actually I’ll tell you how this is going to work. Sites like Wikipedia, GitHub, stack overflow, ext will have to force every one of their users to open a personal account and conduct constant verifications to make sure they’re not AI’s.
From what I’ve seen on the internet people don’t like this.
So again it can’t be both, either it’s all free or it’s all paid for. There is no in between.
Look, I know what you want to happen here and I even agree with it on the surface. Cooperations need to pay their fair share and many of them don’t. But I don’t think you understand the implications of what you’re asking for.
Let the AI’s learn for free because in a few years it won’t matter anyway.
We’re on the precipice of a technological singularity and hopefully in our lifetimes the function of a monetary economy will no longer be relevant.
Licenses are binding because courts recognise them. For individual players it’s usually not worth pursuing, unless you’re Nintendo.
But for large, wealthy, or venture backed, enterprises (notably, ones with legal departments) a class action suit is much more feasible.
This is super basic. We can do better. This isn’t even like novel legal territory. We went through this with photography and Photoshopping.
Sir. I think you have the wrong number.