So we can sue robots

... No?

What would you tax exactly? Robots don't earn an income and don't inherently make a profit. You could tax a company or owner who profits off of robots and/or sells their labor.

What would be the legal argument for this? I'm not against it but I don't know how it could be argued.

i posted on the public internet with the intent and understanding that it would be crawled by systems for all kinds of things. if i dont want content to be grabbed i dont publish it publicly

you can't easily have it both ways imo. even with systems that do strong pki if you want the world in general to see it you are giving up a certain amount of control over how the content gets used.

law does not really matter here as much as people would like to try to apply it, this is simply how public content will be used. Go post in a garden if you don't want to get scrapped, just remember the corollary is your reach, your voice is limited to the walls of that garden.

So some of the most profitable corporations in the world? In that case this lawsuit isn't going anywhere.

Totally agree. I don't care that my data was used for training, but I do care that it's used for profit in a way that only a company with big budget lawyers can manage

I'm honestly at a loss for why people are so up at arms about OAI using this practice and not Google or Facebook or Microsoft, ect. It really seems we're applying a double standard just because people are a bit pissed at OpenAI for a variety of reasons, or maybe just vaguely mad at the monetary scale of "tech giants"

My 2 cents: I don't think content posted on the open internet (especially content produced by users on a free platform being claimed not by those individuals but by the platforms themselves) should be litigated over, when that information isnt even being reproduced but being used on derivative works. I think it's conceptually similar to an individual reading a library of books to become a writer and charge for the content they produce.

I would think a piracy community would be against platforms claiming ownership over user generated content at all.

i once looked at a picture of spider man and badman then made a crappy drawing biterman

to jail with me!

yarrr!

Key difference is that they're making (alot of) money of off the stolen work, and in a way that's only possible for the already filthy rich

Wouldn't mind it personally if it was foss though, like their name suggests

They're using people's content without authorization, but for a open information ideology or something like that, they are closed source and they are using it to make money. I don't think that should be illegal, but it is certainly a dick move

The difference is that they are profitting from other people's work and properties, I don't profit from watching a movie or playing a game for free, I just save some money.

Many of us are sharing without reward and have strong ethical beliefs regarding for-profit distribution of material versus non-profit sharing.

It really isn't that bonkers. A lot software thought is about licensing. See GPL and Creative Commons and all that stuff thats all about how things can be profited from/responsibilities around it. Benefiting from free data is one thing. Privately profiting at the expense or not sharing the capability/advances that came from it is another. Willing to bet there's GPL violations via the training sets.

Is it even possible to attach licenses to text posts on social media?

I think you mean precident

Vote Skynet for 2024 Presidential Election, the efficient choice!