▲ 243 ▼ Reddit Advised to Target at Least $5 Billion Valuation in IPO (www.bloomberg.com) submitted 2 years ago by ardi60@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.ml 167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (3 children) Except AI models may end up having to start again with licences or public domain data. They are currently breaking the law and delaying legal action as long as possible in the hopes they can repeat the trick with a new data set. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Tak@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Typically they aren't fighting other corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago My point is that corporations often see a fine as a cost of business because the fines are issued by a regulatory system that has no teeth. If you're in a lawsuit against another corporation they are going after damages in civil court and it's likely to be a high enough fine to stop the behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent [–] besbin@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Whatever already existed won't be thrown away regardless of the ruling. It's like throwing all the gold already dug up just because it was done by slave labor. The law and legal actions are mostly just a moat around the pile of gold already dug up. Sure AI companies will have to pay more for the new data from other sources. However that would be peanut compared to how much they will have to pay starting from zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If every time what already exists gets used there's a risk of a massive fine or court case they'll throw it away. The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they've built the replacement. Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law. If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright. We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output. To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent [–] diffuselight@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No they’ll train on laundered model output. Like every llama. The investment thesis they the data is valuable is bonkers. It’s not. Not only has it been exfiltrated and can be laundered in a dozen ways, Reddit also won’t be able to effectively assert copyright. Look at Facebook. It’s full of reposted quora content now with AI images and AI laundered text. Reddit is dead permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tak@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Typically they aren't fighting other corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago My point is that corporations often see a fine as a cost of business because the fines are issued by a regulatory system that has no teeth. If you're in a lawsuit against another corporation they are going after damages in civil court and it's likely to be a high enough fine to stop the behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Typically they aren't fighting other corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago My point is that corporations often see a fine as a cost of business because the fines are issued by a regulatory system that has no teeth. If you're in a lawsuit against another corporation they are going after damages in civil court and it's likely to be a high enough fine to stop the behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago My point is that corporations often see a fine as a cost of business because the fines are issued by a regulatory system that has no teeth. If you're in a lawsuit against another corporation they are going after damages in civil court and it's likely to be a high enough fine to stop the behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago My point is that corporations often see a fine as a cost of business because the fines are issued by a regulatory system that has no teeth. If you're in a lawsuit against another corporation they are going after damages in civil court and it's likely to be a high enough fine to stop the behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] besbin@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Whatever already existed won't be thrown away regardless of the ruling. It's like throwing all the gold already dug up just because it was done by slave labor. The law and legal actions are mostly just a moat around the pile of gold already dug up. Sure AI companies will have to pay more for the new data from other sources. However that would be peanut compared to how much they will have to pay starting from zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If every time what already exists gets used there's a risk of a massive fine or court case they'll throw it away. The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they've built the replacement. Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law. If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright. We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output. To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If every time what already exists gets used there's a risk of a massive fine or court case they'll throw it away. The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they've built the replacement. Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law. If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright. We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output. To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law. If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright. We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output. To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright. We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output. To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved. Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees. Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5. They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) A court wouldn't look favourably on that. Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] diffuselight@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No they’ll train on laundered model output. Like every llama. The investment thesis they the data is valuable is bonkers. It’s not. Not only has it been exfiltrated and can be laundered in a dozen ways, Reddit also won’t be able to effectively assert copyright. Look at Facebook. It’s full of reposted quora content now with AI images and AI laundered text. Reddit is dead permalink fedilink source parent