Revolut says that in less than a year it’s managed to slash its [code generation] costs by roughly 90 percent by making self-hosted models its default instead of relying primarily on commercial services like Claude.
Revolut says that in less than a year it’s managed to slash its [code generation] costs by roughly 90 percent by making self-hosted models its default instead of relying primarily on commercial services like Claude.
Copyright isn’t something you “get.” It’s something that comes with the production, no extra steps required.
You’ve accidentally come upon the other reason why your example doesn’t hold in the training data case. How do you suss out who actually holds the copyright on that data.
Take my shitpost for example. Whonis the copyright holder? Me the author? Reddit the platform I published on? What if the source was an Internet Archive snapshot?
Do you earnestly believe this could work in practice?
When i write a sentence then do i have a copyright upon it which i can defend in law? No. Yes copyright is nothing you get, that in theory is correct but in practice a sentence or few lines of code don’t let me fight for them in court.
The current models are all trained with data which at least some larger creator (book writer or whatever) does not want a model to be trained on. So the discussion is a complete other, not how ppl will be compensated on their unlawful use of their data but on how the payment works in the future and here comes my first comment back.
The current models are under the current law unsustainable. And more and more courts rule in this direction.
Umm… Yes. Yes, you do. That’s how copyright works…
Is this not antithetical to your stance? Or are you saying that only those entities large enough to defend themselves against the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic are deserving of being paid for use of their works?
I completely agree with you here, but something like a class action lawsuit is not a viable solution.
You understand the scale right? This is a combinatorial problem: the plaintiffs in this case would be every individual and company that has ever existed, and the defendants would be not only the AI companies, but also anyone who has ever used or published AI generated content. That’s a wishful thought, not a realistic solution.
Pls dont bother to answer if you do not have a proof that a simple sentence or a simple line of code has any meaning for copyright in the court. And no i dont mean the few sentences that are actually copyrighted since they are catchphrases to specifics. No i mean a general sentence, or line of code.
Try to copyright “i = i + 1”. Then we can continue this talk.
I’m sorry, but it’s not my responsibility to educate you about copyright law, even though I have done what I could. I wish you the best. Good day.