There’s not just a desperation for Skynet by US government, like protecting oil from EVs/renewables, this is also about creating new oligarchs to fund electoral results that oppress Americans/humanity.
which technically makes piracy legal because that’s the gov endorsing piracy
should update torrent client to say “LLM training agent” instead, legally safe /s
yup
Nah we might need to accept reality. You need to be rich enough to make some bullshit company that uses A.I. then you can pirate legally using that A.I. as an excuse.
so Norm was right. …
To my understanding, and excuse me if I‘m wrong because I‘m not a lawyer but that‘s not what the fucking law says? You either uphold copyright law or abandon it. There is no middle way and if courts disagree with you, your stance doesn‘t really matter here.
We are all training our own AI models now.
But you don’t get to enjoy copyrighted materiel yourself
Trump’s government siding with OpenAI is peak MAGA economics: copyright is sacred until Silicon Valley needs millions of other people’s books, articles and art for free. Then suddenly property rights become an annoying obstacle to »winning the AI race.« Apparently America First now means AI companies first, creators somewhere near last.
Alrighty then, enjoy the end of creative people creating things, let’s all find out together how this ends 😐
Then I’ll continue to pirate everything
- train your local AI models
this is worse than you can imagine. Started college again. Syllabus says, you can’t use AI. Okay, login to the school website; starts with microslops email login to straight to chat gpt. Okay, need to search for something on the school website, here’s the schools AI search. Okay, answer a topic but we will check and grade it with various AI platforms. Okay, write things in your own words and then I get a 0/100 for doing so. I answered it correctly, exponentially better than the outdated class. So yeah, they can get bent. The best part was that the other students that used LLMs to regurgitate my answer differently. Maybe one less person working in cybersecurity is overall better and I’ll just go back to fixing stuff and watch it all get cooked.
He still can’t bring me a beer.
Amen brother.
gonna start my own darknet with a 56k bandwidth limit.
shit was simpler 30 years ago because nothing advanced enough could use such a slow connection.
Let’s get the good stuff down from the loft… the loft ladder creaks
Whatever, fuck AI slop.
lol
We’re in danger
All I’m hearing is piracy is legal now 🏴☠️
Remember how china said that a few months ago and the US was all like “communism is stealing our data”
So hear me out.
From a purely strategic standpoint, the ultimate goal is artificial general intelligence. Eventually, humanity is going to get there. The question is who gets there first, and what they do with it.
The country that achieves genuinely transformative AGI first could potentially gain an enormous strategic advantage. And if AGI is capable of significantly accelerating AI research itself, that advantage could compound very quickly: AGI helps develop better AI, which accelerates scientific and technological development, which produces even more capable AI.
Whoever gets there second may not necessarily be permanently incapable of catching up, but they could find themselves facing a massive technological and economic gap that becomes increasingly difficult to close.
And here’s where I think things get uncomfortable.
The countries competing to develop this technology are not necessarily going to have the same restrictions. Some countries may be considerably less concerned about copyright, training data, ethical restrictions, censorship, or what subjects an AI is permitted to discuss.
I’m not saying those concerns aren’t legitimate. They absolutely are. But from a purely geopolitical standpoint, there is a potential danger in one country imposing significant self-restraints while its competitors don’t.
Because if AGI really does become as transformative as many people believe it could be, this isn’t just another technology race. It could become a race over scientific advancement, industrial capacity, military technology, economic productivity, and potentially the ability to develop even more advanced AI.
And, honestly, I would rather the United States and other democratic countries reach that point first than China, North Korea, or another highly authoritarian state.
That doesn’t mean I think democratic countries are incapable of abusing powerful technology. Of course they are. The point is that who controls a technology this powerful matters enormously.
So when people talk about AI development purely in terms of corporate profits or whether AI companies should be allowed to train on particular datasets, I think they’re sometimes missing the much larger geopolitical picture.
We’re potentially talking about a technology that could fundamentally alter the balance of power between nations.
That’s a very different conversation.
Disclaimer: I’m not necessarily advocating for AI or LLMs here. I’m simply trying to look at the situation from a purely strategic/geopolitical perspective and consider how governments and other actors might view the race toward AGI.
Well said.
The main challenge I see is that Aaron Schwartz and countless others have been prosecuted for access to information but AI companies have been rewarded. There is precedence that access like this is not legal. Had they gone through a library system or used a mechanic like that it may have worked but from what I understand, they used torrents and other mechanics to access the data. So you have companies that go after individual infringement but pursue their own mass infringement. Whether AI generated materials is infringement is above my pay grade but their consumption of the materials seems pretty straight forward as infringement.
The NY Times and Pearson, two of the most valuable US publishers, each have market caps of about $10 billion.
Let’s say Pearson went after OpenAI. They devote an unlimited legal budget to the fight. OpenAI is hoping to IPO as a trillion dollar company. If Pearson went after OpenAI, rather than fight them in court, a deal could be reached first. If that didn’t work, if a deal couldn’t be reached, OpenAI could bypass the problem completely:
- Spend $5 billion to buy a controlling share of Pearson.
- Fire the entire leadership team and install OpenAI minions in their place.
- Once they control Pearson, sign a long-term licensing deal with OpenAI with very generous licensing terms and huge early cancellation fees.
- Sell the shares back on the market at a (likely slightly reduced) value.
OpenAI would likely have to spend some money on net. The value of Pearson stock would likely be a bit lower after effectively giving away the rights to their works as training data. If signing a durable rights contract the new owners can’t escape isn’t practical, buying the company and simply holding it indefinitely would also be an option.
If you have copyright juggernauts gatekeeping the data through legislation, then you can’t have open-source models.
I’m surprised how many want to shoot consumers in the face just to protect mafia like companies like Universal Studios and YouTube.
