Comment on British fintech Revolut slashes "AI" coding costs 10x by cutting out Claude and going self-hosted
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 10 hours agoAnd we are talking about meaningful data not your shitpost, like licensed code or a book you wrote and anthropic pirated.
Ah ha! You see, that’s the problem. My shitpost is meaningful data. This is something people seem to have a really hard time understanding. Scaling laws and the size of the search space in AI training means that the datum is not valuable. It’s only the data (in conglomerate) that is value for training, and my shitpost would be a part of that.
Once you understand this, you should see what I meant when I said it’s not feasible. How do you determine and then fairly distribute the payout to everyone who has ever written or recorded anything in digital format? This is not a simple supply vs demand equation, like your bakery example assumes.
Also I have no idea what Netflix has to do with this discussion.
ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
No. Meaningful in the sense of copyright. Data you get copyright
There you got your distinction.
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Copyright isn’t something you “get.” It’s something that comes with the production, no extra steps required.
You’ve accidentally come upon the other reason why your example doesn’t hold in the training data case. How do you suss out who actually holds the copyright on that data.
Take my shitpost for example. Whonis the copyright holder? Me the author? Reddit the platform I published on? What if the source was an Internet Archive snapshot?
Do you earnestly believe this could work in practice?
ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
When i write a sentence then do i have a copyright upon it which i can defend in law? No. Yes copyright is nothing you get, that in theory is correct but in practice a sentence or few lines of code don’t let me fight for them in court.
The current models are all trained with data which at least some larger creator (book writer or whatever) does not want a model to be trained on. So the discussion is a complete other, not how ppl will be compensated on their unlawful use of their data but on how the payment works in the future and here comes my first comment back.
The current models are under the current law unsustainable. And more and more courts rule in this direction.
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Umm… Yes. Yes, you do. That’s how copyright works…
Is this not antithetical to your stance? Or are you saying that only those entities large enough to defend themselves against the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic are deserving of being paid for use of their works?
I completely agree with you here, but something like a class action lawsuit is not a viable solution.
You understand the scale right? This is a combinatorial problem: the plaintiffs in this case would be every individual and company that has ever existed, and the defendants would be not only the AI companies, but also anyone who has ever used or published AI generated content. That’s a wishful thought, not a realistic solution.