Skip Navigation
Jump
The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
  • Yes that is the point behind the 'you wouldn't download a car' meme 🙂

    5
  • Jump
    The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
  • It's funny you mention the Katy Perry chord case, because Damien Riehl, who made the argument I referenced in my original post, actually talked about this exact case in the podcast I mentioned. He noted that Katy Perry was initially sued and a jury awarded $2.8 million over a very simple melody that appeared over 8,000 times in Riehl's dataset of generated melodies. However, after Riehl gave his TED talk about his "All the Music" project in early 2020, the judge reversed the jury verdict, saying the melody was unoriginal and therefore uncopyrightable.

    2
  • Jump
    The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
  • And they've downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.

    Do you have a source on that?

    -4
  • Jump
    The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
  • OpenAI like other AI companies keep their data sources confidential. But there are services and commercial databases for books that people understand are commonly used in the AI industry.

    -12
  • Jump
    The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
  • I am thrilled to see the output you get!

    -5
  • Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.

    This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.

    This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.

    Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.

    While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.

    For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744

    480
    Jump
    OpenAI Pleads That It Can’t Make Money Without Using Copyrighted Materials for Free
  • Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" are misunderstanding key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.

    This process is more akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.

    This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.

    Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was found to be legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.

    While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.

    -6
  • Jump
    What is your favorite AI chatbot?
  • there are no good opinions you have

    -5
  • Jump
    Enchanted Swing - by Ilya Zomb
  • No this is obviously chatgpt image

    -5
  • Jump
    Asking gemini if google is a monopoly
  • On a side note the free gemini version (whichever model they use) is absolute poo poo compared to free Claude or even Chatgpt.

    3
  • Jump
    Let's Uninstall Chrome but...
  • "Everyone that doesn't share my specific preferences is a sheep (╯° □°) ╯"

    -1
  • Jump
    Let's Uninstall Chrome but...
  • FF mobile is slow

    -2
  • Jump
    Let's Uninstall Chrome but...
  • I shall not stoop so low as to using a browser named ""floorp"".

    7
  • Jump
    Let's Uninstall Chrome but...
  • Nah

    -36
  • Jump
    But I have so many followers!
  • I use adblock so I am doing this planet a service by adding load to their shitty serveris 👍

    -4
  • Jump
    AOC wants to impeach SCOTUS justices following Trump immunity ruling
  • A few more peaceful protests is sure to fix things in a giffie!

    💩💯💯

    -44
  • Jump
    Stay Mad, Tankies
  • You address this to tankies. I see very few of them around here these days.

    Cringe karma post.

    5
  • Jump
    The anti-AI sentiment in the free software communities is concerning.
  • Changing the brightness or WiFi settings can be very useful for many people. Not everyone is a Linux nerd and knows all the ins and outs of basic computing.

    0
  • Whenever AI is mentioned lots of people in the Linux space immediately react negatively. Creators like TheLinuxExperiment on YouTube always feel the need to add a disclaimer that "some people think AI is problematic" or something along those lines if an AI topic is discussed. I get that AI has many problems but at the same time the potential it has is immense, especially as an assistant on personal computers (just look at what "Apple Intelligence" seems to be capable of.) Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don't become obsolete. Using an AI-less desktop may be akin to hand copying books after the printing press revolution. If you think of specific problems it is better to point them out and try think of solutions, not reject the technology as a whole.

    TLDR: A lot of ludite sentiments around AI in Linux community.

    201