- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
An update to Google’s privacy policy suggests that the entire public internet is fair game for it’s AI projects.
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t see why this is a problem (apart from supposedly private data like email), it’s not just Google that can do this, all this data is available to everyone for everyone who can use it to benefit. If you want to make Google pay for a publicly available good, tax them accordingly. That’s the point of taxes: if you are successful enough to take advantage in any way from a country’s public roads, education system, access to a labour market and a functioning society generally, taxing the massive profits from using that system is fair, not enclosing everything and holding access to the content we contributed hostage.
Yeah public data is public. If anyone doesn’t want their shitty comments or whatever to be used for AI training then put it behind a login or something.
Except that’s not true, public posting of content does not trump copyright protection. Google using content for AI purposes is almost certainly a copyright issue. I may post content for human consumption but that does not mean I allow it to be used by a private corporation for profit purposes
Can we please not empower copyright to such silly extent? Copyright is already utter garbage and some want to extend to tweets, comments and whatnot.
Also, AI is copying the same way we copy everything - by learning. So we shouldn’t be allowed to quote and refer to stuff we learn about online? In no way this argument makes sense - down with the copyright.
That’s not empowering copyright. That’s literally how it works. Copyright is automatic, and if you do not have a prior agreement assigning copyright it is awarded to the person who created said content, be it a tweet, blog post, etc.
If I make a blog post and google scrapes the data and uses that day for profit, that’s copyright infringement, unless they can prove fair use, which has narrow definitions that training an AI for profit purposes definitely doesn’t fall under
I dread reality you’re describing where every bit of information is propriatory. I think the world is a better place with free information. What you’re describing sounds whole lot like throwing the baby out with the bath water - just because big tech corporations are “bad”.
I mean you can dread it all you want, because that is LITERALLY how it works today. Google, OpenAI and Microsoft already have multiple lawsuits for stealing people’s copyrights to train their LLMs.
Copyright is assigned automatically. If I make a blog post, that is automatically my copyrighted material. As the creator I get to choose how it’s used, not Google
If I took some proprietary Google code and used it without permission you know damn well they would sue my ass into oblivion. Copyright has to protect the small as well as the giant.
I don’t think you understand.
Let’s imagine everything is copyrighted. Who will be able to create LLMs now? Google/Meta who can afford to literally hire thousands of people on below minimum wage creating annotations or smaller companies and free projects? You are literally empowering the thing you’re complaining about.
Public data is public and that’s good for general balance. It removed the moats.
