It’s all made from our data, anyway, so it should be ours to use as we want

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Two things:

    1. Getty is not expressly licensed as “free to use”, and by default is not licensed for commercial anything. That’s how they are a business that is still alive.

    2. You’re talking about Generative AI junk and not LLMs which this discussion and the original post is about. They are not the same thing.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Reddit and newspapers selling their data preemptively has to do with LLMs. Can you clarify what scenario you are aiming for? It sounds like you want the courts to rule that AI companies need to ask each individual redditor if they can use his comments for training. I don’t see this happening personally.

      Getty gives itself the right to license all photos uploaded and already trained a generative model on those btw.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        EULA and TOS agreements stop Reddit and similar sites from being sued. They changed them before they were selling the data and barely gave notice about it (see the exodus from reddit pt2), but if you keep using the service, you agree to both, and they can get away with it because they own the platform.

        Anyone who has their content on a platform of the like that got the rug pulled out from under them with silent amendments being made to allow that is unfortunately fucked.

        Any other platforms that didn’t explicitly state this was happening is not in scope to just allow these training tools to grab and train. What we know is that OpenAI at the very least was training on public sites that didn’t explicitly allow this. Personal blogs, Wikipedia…etc.