You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
10 points

This isn’t a copyright thing. This is a tech regulation thing, that creates the possibility for data protection agencies to stick their noses in AI company’s business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

General purpose” mostly means LLMs. Companies have a year to write documentation and promise to follow copyright.

Says it right there

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Takes me much less than a year to promise to do anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I love how the time factor is always ignored when tech companies eventually comply with regulation or just do the right thing. “at least they did it” isn’t an argument, it’s a consolation.

It took airbnb over a year(!) to show all the fees up front on the search results page instead of waiting to show them on the checkout page. That’s over a year after their asshat CEO announced on twitter that they would be doing it (to quell the social media uproar about how deceptive it was)

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

how does allowing the ai companies to ignore copyright improve the situation, pray tell?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Next time Lars Ulrich sues you you’ll be able to say you needed the Some Kind of Monster mp3s for AI research. It’s foolproof.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This quote got me rent free. If I break a law I don’t like for a couple of years, do I also get another year to “promise” to stop breaking it in the future?

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 502

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators