I believe it's mostly illegal for both parties, but in practice less often enforced for the downloading party, as this enforcement would require too much resources for the enforcing side.

To give concrete examples, downloading pirated material is illegal in both the U.S and in Sweden, and afaik the latter is on par with the rest of the EU.

Settle down, nerds. TACO just read from the card they gave him. He doesn't think anything about AI. Of course, he'll make the wrong decisions and cause utter chaos and strife but it's not like he has an actual opinion about AI.

My thoughts exactly. You can’t expect to have a successful file sharing system if you have to get permission for everything you distribute, you guys!

The situation has been made possible by the enormous trust in progress and "technical fashion" that existed recently, that seems to be drying out.

Say, 10-15 years ago offline-enabled means of communication were a matter of toys for people with no clear idea of future.

Now people going to protests use them, and the dangers of mainstream Internet services and platforms are also common knowledge.

So there is some immunity being formed. It's even better that this happens slowly. I would be worried if this were some fashion spreading rapidly, but now we can see one crowd using Briar, another crowd using Bridgefy, another crowd jumping on Jack Dorsey's Bitchat, LoRa and Meshtastic growing in popularity, all those things picking different approaches to the same goal, which signifies evolutionary convergence onto a commonly understood set of problems.

People who were simping for corps no longer do. People who were simping for social media no longer do. People simping for Apple and Google and MS seem to be a rare kind now.

The response is happening.

Then maybe AI "programs" aren't a good product.
Next it will be, "we can't be expected to make a good murderbot without murdering some people"

Also, he's talking about AI companies, i.e. the people who bribe him. How insolent of you plebes to assume you'd get the same rights.

Of course not! If they did then they'd be several fractions of a billion less wealthy!

I mean basically.

Except they're not. Fair use allows them to use freely available sources. Ever hear of "non-fiction"?

Remember kids: Copyright is only for the rich.

Go ahead and copy-paste some news articles and sell them as your own. That’ll go great.

So let's pretend we give them all the training data they want for free (which they already have taken illegally)

The buisness model is still non-viable because the energy costs far outweigh any subscriptions they can get. And the tech isn't even good enough for people to want to subscribe at the current prices.

But ... Sharing is Caring ... Gotta keep that ratio above 20!

I know it's popular to hate on LLMs here at Lemmy, but what is "Artificial Intelligence" if not "Counterfeiting Thought"? Those words map to each other pretty nicely

haha ur so brave

Hopefully this helps create precedent to stop enforcing copyright for everyone

It was intentional.

who told him about copyright

Actually, let me add to my statement of it being intentional.

There are things that AI applications can do that humans can't.

AI is all about analyzing large sets of variables and finding things. Take recent studies in pathology where AI can find the patterns of certain disease in tissue specimens. This only works because the enormous dataset that was provided was already vetted by pathologists. I would argue this isn't counterfeiting human thought. This is enhancing an already utilized algorithm trained by doctors. Remember, a pathologist still needs to put their license on the line if they agree with the AI findings.

There is NO accountability in LLMs. To many people it looks like it is thinking, it has understood what the person has said, and considered boundaries that exist in our minds, but maybe not communicated to the LLM.

Thats why I call these AI programs unsuccessful and counterfeit. They're giving users made by possibly unverified and unreliable data with no accountability.

Information should be free. Don’t feel bad because someone abused something good towards a bad end.

The problem here isn’t archives, it’s “AI” and the people behind it.