Because if AI has to pay, you kill the open-source scene and give a fat monopoly to the handful of companies that can afford the data. Not to mention that data is owned by a few publishing house and none of the writers are getting a dime.
Yes it’s silly that students pay so much, but we should be arguing for less copyrights so we can have both proper prices in education and a vibrant open source scene.
Most people argue for a strengthening of copyrights which only helps data brokers and big AI players. If you want subscription services and censorship while still keeping all the drawbacks of AI, this is how you do it.
The entire open-source scene grew out of that exact system before LLMs even existed. What are you talking about?
Also, just because somebody has the right to make their code open-source doesn’t mean that everyone should be forced to do the same. If you decide to make a living by writing books under a permissive license you should be able to do that. This is a free world. Nobody is forcing open-source developers to make the code proprietary. But people like you feel to be in the moral right to force the opposite to others.
AI has always been able to train on copyrighted data because it’s considered transformative.
If this changes, seeing the huge amount of data needed for competitive generative AI, then open source AI cannot afford the data and dies. Strengthening copyrights would force everyone out of the game except Meta, Google and Microsoft.
The system that open source AI grew out of is exactly what is being attacked.
Because if AI has to pay, you kill the open-source scene and give a fat monopoly to the handful of companies that can afford the data. Not to mention that data is owned by a few publishing house and none of the writers are getting a dime.
Yes it’s silly that students pay so much, but we should be arguing for less copyrights so we can have both proper prices in education and a vibrant open source scene.
Most people argue for a strengthening of copyrights which only helps data brokers and big AI players. If you want subscription services and censorship while still keeping all the drawbacks of AI, this is how you do it.
FOSS infrastructure is under attack by AI companies
How does that change if copyrights are strengthened? The open source scene dies and the big players will still keep scraping.
The entire open-source scene grew out of that exact system before LLMs even existed. What are you talking about?
Also, just because somebody has the right to make their code open-source doesn’t mean that everyone should be forced to do the same. If you decide to make a living by writing books under a permissive license you should be able to do that. This is a free world. Nobody is forcing open-source developers to make the code proprietary. But people like you feel to be in the moral right to force the opposite to others.
AI has always been able to train on copyrighted data because it’s considered transformative.
If this changes, seeing the huge amount of data needed for competitive generative AI, then open source AI cannot afford the data and dies. Strengthening copyrights would force everyone out of the game except Meta, Google and Microsoft.
The system that open source AI grew out of is exactly what is being attacked.
Cool then buy at least one copy of a book instead of pirating them.
I care more about people being properly rewarded in this capitalistic world than worry about the open source world.
They won’t be rewarded. Data brokers, record companies, publishing houses, getty, etc will be rewarded.
You want to shoot open source initiatives in the face and give a handful of companies a monopoly, so rich people can get richer.