I’ve just watched the video. I find it pretty outrageous. The word about it should spread.
You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before? Also, are we exclusively talking about cases where sites gave consent to provide data? Rather than just having it be harvested without their knowledge or consent?
And in any case, you’re missing the key point, which is that legality doesn’t matter in either case. You can’t fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don’t.
I suspect that people wouldn’t like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.
Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.
Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.
You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies?
The ToSes would generally have a blanket permission in them to license the data to third-party companies and whatnot. I went back through historical Reddit ToS versions a little while back and that was in there from the start.
Also in there was a clause allowing them to update their ToS, so even if the blanket permission wasn’t there then it is now and you agreed to that too.
Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.
It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued. There are some legal cases before the courts that will clarify this in various jurisdictions but I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data.
you agreed to that too
you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?
hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services
It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued
people continuing to use a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one
I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data
tell me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation
you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?
And you know that doesn’t necessarily imply the reverse? Granting a site a license to use the stuff you post there is a pretty basic and reasonable thing to agree to in exchange for them letting you post stuff there in the first place.
hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services
As others have been pointing out to you in this thread, that also is not a sign that the previous ToS didn’t cover this. They’re just being clearer about what they can do.
Go ahead and refrain from using their services if you don’t agree to the terms under which they’re offering those services. Nobody’s forcing you.
You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before?
Being more specific is not the same as changing something from illegal to legal.
the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?
CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance.
LLMs were a big paradigm shift. They’re not necessarily something that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs
