Right. If what they’re doing is so incredibly valuable, just pay for the resources you’re using.
If your business model only works if you steal stuff from other people you don’t have a business.
If your business model only works if you steal stuff from other people you don’t have a business.
Where can I insert my money to buy every penguin random house book? How do I pay every deviant art artist whatever amount they're owed?
All of deviant art? Probably not. But do you need to train on all of that? You could certainly run ads telling people you’d be willing to pay a small amount to train on their art and let them choose.
Would it be legal to train against the national archives?
Options exist. No you won’t get as much stuff as you do by taking whatever you want, but people are being compensated for their work or at least being given the choice to opt in.
The reason why open-source AI exists at all is that we've always been allowing use of public data - it was okay when Google did it, it was okay when the Internet Archive did it, it was even okay when text translation services used that same data to train their models - or really, that applies to basically anything ML-driven before generative AI.
There's, like, a sea of reasons to criticize OpenAI for - but arguing for extending IP laws even further and calling out opponents for "literal theft" is one of the weaker options that caught on with many people.
ipso facto why does it not exist while spotify buys podcasts and kills them