Skip Navigation

User banner

just another dev

@ admin @lemmy.my-box.dev

Posts
2
Comments
415
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • I don't think so either, but to me that is the purpose.

    Somewhere between small time personal-use ML and commercial exploitation, there should be ethical sourcing of input data, rather than the current method of "scrape all you can find, fuck copyright" that OpenAI & co are getting away with.

  • It’s never been easier for the cops to break into your phone

    Jump

  • I think you'll get to hold on to that feeling.

  • Gemini AI platform caught scanning Google Drive files without user permission

    Jump

  • Good find, that explains.

  • Gemini AI platform caught scanning Google Drive files without user permission

    Jump

  • Gemini AI platform caught scanning Google Drive files without user permission

    Jump

  • That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.

    They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That's pretty damming. Did it just reply "You're not getting a tax return"? That's just 50/50 odds.

  • Gemini AI platform caught scanning Google Drive files without user permission

    Jump

  • Weird. The original article says "accused", but on Lemmy they're already found guilty.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • I respectfully disagree. I think small time AI (read: pretty much all the custom models on hugging face) will get a giant boost out of this, since they can get away with training on "custom" data sets - since they are too small to be held accountable.

    However, those models will become worthless to enterprise level models, since they wouldn't be able to account for the legality. In other words, once you make big bucks of of AI you'll have to prove your models were sourced properly. But if you're just creating a model for small time use, you can get away with a lot.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • You should change your name to afraid_of_reality. Have fun in your dream world, I'm out.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • People keep saying that, all the while ignoring that this bill is granting rights to small time creators to decide if they want their works used for machine learning.

    Yes, this gives a head start to companies that have been abusing the system while it was still allowed. But stopping that behaviour too late is still better than not stopping it at all.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • What are you basing that on?

    Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers.

    Doesn't say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • I'm sure that's how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there's like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • ?

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • Hopefully the next step: force every platform that deals in user generated content to give users the choice to exploit that content for a fraction of the profit, or to exclude their content from processing.

    It's amazing how many people don't realize that they themselves also hold copyright over their content, and that laws like these protect them as well.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • In the same way that the law doesn't prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • I'm the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • Because even when some of the water has gotten out, you still go plug the dam.

    The best moment was earlier. The second best moment is now.

  • The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content)

    Jump

  • Seeing as laws can't be applied retroactively, what would have been the alternative?

  • Using S3 as a container registry

    Jump

  • Interesting summary, although not really an unexpected result.

    Side note: I like your username.

  • A grieving mom’s TikTok videos spark online speech battle

    Jump

  • Nope, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I was just pointing out how the commenter above me was misrepresenting the judges reasoning.

    Obviously people should get angry over this. But I do not have enough faith in social media to believe that anger will find a healthy outlet if left unmanaged.

    But if you are asking for my opinion - I think the woman should be allowed to tell her story, as long as she doesn't encourage naming the perpetrators or does so herself. And, given the circumstances / if possible, disable public comments and reposting to discourage further harassment.