• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 17th, 2023

help-circle
  • Except they pocket millions of dollars by breaking that rule and the original creators of their “essential data” don’t get a single cent while their creations indirectly show up in content generated by AI. If it really was about changing the rules they wouldn’t be so obvious in making it profitable, but rather use that money to make it available for the greater good AND pay the people that made their training data. Right now they’re hell-bent in commercialising their products as fast as possible.

    If their statement is that stealing literally all the content on the internet is the only way to make AI work (instead of for example using their profits to pay for a selection of all that data and only using that) then the business model is wrong and illegal. It’s as a simple as that.

    I don’t get why people are so hell-bent on defending OpenAI in this case; if I were to launch a food-delivery service that’s affordable for everyone, but I shoplifted all my ingredients “because it’s the only way”, most would agree that’s wrong and my business is illegal. Why is this OpenAI case any different? Because AI is an essential development? Oh, and affordable food isn’t?















  • Grabbels@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlThe future of Threads
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, let’s be real: it’s caught on way better than Google+ and is already pretty mainstream with lots of people flocking over in need for a Twitter replacement. Google+ entered into a space that was saturated by Facebook with very little extra value (or none at all) when switching.