Investigators recovered two stolen trailers carrying $1.3 million in data center supplies, including copper wire and infrastructure equipment.
Investigators recovered two stolen trailers carrying $1.3 million in data center supplies, including copper wire and infrastructure equipment.
Okay, I’ll address this briefly.
When a human artist paints a painting and sells it, does the estate of Michelangelo receive royalties because that artist was inspired by his work?
The reason you believe LLM training is copyright infringement is that you fundamentally misunderstand how the technology works. That’s a common theme on this platform among people who oppose AI. Many dislike it because it’s become the popular position, not because they understand how these models actually function.
When an AI generates something, it creates a novel output in response to a prompt. It is producing something new, not copying existing works verbatim. Copyright infringement generally requires copying protected expression, and simply learning patterns from publicly available data is not the same thing.
Moreover, you can’t have it both ways. If information is publicly available, then it is available to be read, analyzed, and learned from. Either it’s public, or it isn’t.
More importantly, none of this was the point of my original comment. I’m only addressing it because you clearly want to discuss AI.
For the record, I am completely opposed to what many companies are doing with AI data centers. I think the current trajectory is environmentally damaging, economically questionable, and, in some cases, a humanitarian concern. I’ve said this repeatedly. You’re free to believe me or not, I can’t prove my sincerity, but that has been my position throughout.
Now, would you like to discuss the actual topic of conversation, the two-faced nature of Lemmy?
You couldn’t pay me enough to waste my brain cells on your disingenuous, fart-sniffing sophistry and bad faith horseshit, so no I don’t think I will, get better please.
Bad faith?
That is an amazing claim coming from somebody who is literally arguing in bad faith.
You already have a predisposition and bias against AI.
You read my comment and immediately thought, “He’s defending AI because he’s calling me out on my bullcrap.” I’m actually not. I’ve been making two points: you don’t know how AI functions, and you don’t know what copyright is.
AI models don’t use their training data to reproduce that training data verbatim. Therefore, the training process itself is not copyright infringement. Using publicly available material to train AI is not illegal, nor is it inherently morally reprehensible.
If companies are stealing data to train their AI, then they are breaking the law and should be punished and prosecuted for it.
I do not support that in any way. I also do not support the construction of massive AI data centers. They’re a blight on society.
You’re upset because I called you out for being stupid. Instead of responding to my arguments, you called me a fart eater and threw around words like “sophistry.”
And then you say I’m the one arguing in bad faith.
What a hypocrite.
So basically there’s nothing you can do to refute what I’m saying because it’s all true so you resort to “nuh-uh” with a thesaurus.