▲ 396 ▼ Bernie Sanders tells OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta to pause AI development or face Senate action (www.techspot.com) submitted 1 month ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (17 children) What court case are you referring to? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) What court case did I bring up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (15 children) How do you determine that a crime has been committed without a court case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (14 children) Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (13 children) That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) What court case did I bring up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (15 children) How do you determine that a crime has been committed without a court case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (14 children) Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (13 children) That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (15 children) How do you determine that a crime has been committed without a court case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (14 children) Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (13 children) That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (14 children) Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (13 children) That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (13 children) That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (12 children) Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore?? You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (10 children) you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (9 children) So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief? Think this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (8 children) So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything. I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working. Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children) If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence. Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (4 children) Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children) Make your case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mathium05@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 month ago "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. " https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf permalink fedilink source parent