Hacker reverse engineers his Samsung TV and finds on-device AI listening for your dog and baby, watching what you watch, and borrowing your soundbar’s mic if the TV doesn’t have one. Then OpenAI banned him for reverse-engineering it.
Source:
Hacker reverse engineers his Samsung TV and finds on-device AI listening for your dog and baby, watching what you watch, and borrowing your soundbar’s mic if the TV doesn’t have one. Then OpenAI banned him for reverse-engineering it.
Source:
Libraries are for reading.
Well, their books are, yes.
But, the similarities largely stop there, in this instance. Training “AI” on literature isn’t at all similar to a single person checking out a book/magazine/dvd/et al, and that’s not even getting into the fact that the aforementioned fuckers are destroying tons of physical copies IRL to “train” their bullshit bots.
“AI” ≈ libraries? Pff. We would be so lucky. 🥲
When y’all complained about them leeching Anna’s Archive, the legal approach you demanded means buying and shredding one copy of any book they use. They can’t resell the book or share their scan because that’s piracy, which Lemmy cares deeply about in this context and only this context.
Training is transformative. A program that can retell Shrek in the style of The Hobbit is not even the same category of thing as either original work. What a network is and does cannot be a substitute, unless the Silmarillion had more swamp ogres than I’ve heard.
Don’t apologize for them —especially not with shit argument points and implied shame. Fuck off with that shit. None of this is a consequence of “our” actions, and your stance is more simp than solid. Nah. Hard pass.
Not an argument.
I’ll say. Wrangling cats is easier than whatever this is.
Additional sneering is worse.
If you want these companies to do things the right, proper, and legal way - that means shredding books. That’s the only way to get a scan and “own” it. Blame our stupid laws for not offering better options. Mostly books scanned this way are mass-market paperbacks, because nothing popular is rare, and most important things are fairly popular. This is inseparable from your rights over any physical media you own, and the dumbest possible thing we could do is make copyright worse just because you’re sour about a chatbot.
You should want better options for these companies. They’d love to brag about how many niche titles they’ve preserved, if they could just plop their scans onto Archive.org. That’s a better end than a lot of oddities would get, languishing on a shelf until they hit the trash.
They’re buying rare books, too. They don’t think it’s worth their time to pick and choose, and money is no object. There was a story about this fairly recently.
There was a story about this every week for the last year. Every single time, acting like it’s fresh and shocking and inexplicable. Like they’re doing anything more than buying ONE copy each.
Hey, wouldn’t it be great if they could share those scans of expensive oddities? Maybe we should relax the laws that turn old books into vulnerable secrets.
Sorry, are you high? How tf does that make sense? Do you shred the books you buy, after reading them?
This particular use you seem to be irrationally shilling for is nothing like anything humankind has experienced before, let alone a variation on commerce that’s been ethically overseen, and should be treated as such: with ironclad, tailor-fit licensing per-use to utilize specific content, and with fines proportionate to its corp’s worth for each failure/breach. (which likely will be many, in the beginning, as the leeches test the new boundaries)
And, until that is even viable, they don’t get to “train” their half-assed LLMs on anything they don’t have explicit permission to do so. Full stop.
That any of us here would prefer to let it slide “this time” belies a collective accessory to the currently conflagrating reality we all share.
***** : bullshit they are; we’ll hear about the infinitesimal “fine” later on, once it benefits them to shift public focus. Check back later, see if they don’t.
edit: FWIW, the glaring fact that the current draconian laws that’re being complied with***** are irrelevant to this unique type of transaction and are only serving to justify the rapid destruction of priceless literary works, etc. isn’t exactly engendering hope.
Also:
jesuschrist. You’ve gulped the Kool-Aid, my guy. 🤢 You know “them” personally? They call you at home? Like you somehow have a finger on the pulse of what “they’d love to” do.
…or, maybe you do. 🤔
One of us is pulling laws out of their ass, and it’s not me.
For the same reason you’re allowed to rip your CDs to MP3 without the record label’s permission, you can make backup scans of a book. If you then sell the book - that’s not a backup. You can never let anyone else own that copy, if you want to keep using your backup. Since the easiest way to scan a book is to cut the spine off, it’s not difficult to see why these companies dump the pages when they’re done. Well. It’s not difficult unless you stick your fingers in your ears and go ‘la la la that can’t be how things work.’
It’s not a matter of “this time.” I do not give a fuck about actual piracy. Why am I supposed to care that some company did math about library books? What they’re doing is only legal because of your rights to the products you buy, and what they’re doing is only required because eternal copyright has suffocated the public domain.
The US constitution explicitly states that copyright exists to promote the useful arts and sciences. Protecting dead trees with the words of dead authors, to stop a technology whose limits we’ve barely seen, is antithetical to that purpose.
There will come vegan models. There will be very small networks, trained on bespoke data happily provided by open-source ultranerds, which achieve the spooky parts of modern datacenter behemoths. Obviously the ability to reason doesn’t require knowing what Harry Potter is.