The latest infuriating thing about this to come to mind: How well did this excuse work for Aaron Swartz and Sci-Hub when they did it for free? How well has it been working for the Internet Archive so far? Why are we only supposed to consider it acceptable when someone’s profiting?
‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says
Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their productsBusiness live – latest updatesThe developer OpenAI has said it would be impossible to create tools like its groundbreaking chatbot ChatGPT without access to copyrighted material, as pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products.Chatbots such as ChatGPT and image generators like Stable Diffusion are “trained” on a vast trove of data taken from the internet, with much of it covered by copyright – a legal protection against someone’s work being used without permission. Continue reading...
Because capitalism.
Obvious to anyone who has spent even a few adult years in capitalism.
Capitalism dislikes being shown up.
Good god, yes. Please wrote something about this!
I hadn't even considered in the context of Schwartz, but that does give it an even more putrid spin.
Because that's the way Americans are raised, from kindergarten on. The worship of money and the apotheosis of the corporation means it's ingrained in the American psyche. It will take generations to reduce it to sensible proportions.
Capitalism gives people brain worms.
In the US there is precedent that scanning a set of copyrighted books for a purpose other than making those scans publicly available is covered by fair use, which isn’t far from what OpenAI is arguing. By contrast, what SciHub and IA do does not involve any transformative use of the copied work.
If this recent fight would help to legitimise scihub, it would entirely change my opinion on the issue. I don’t think it’s likely though. Most likely copyright will win, nothing will change for big players (via expensive hacks and crutches), normal ppl (creators, educators) will be screwed.
would an LLM funded and trained by the Internet Archive be considered more acceptable, do you think?