LOL

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    Oh are we supposed to care about substantial evidence of theft now? Because there’s a few artists, writers, and other creatives that would like to have a word with you…

    • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      Yes it is. Although I personally have far less moral objections to it.

      To elaborate:
      OpenAI scraped data without permission, and then makes money from it.

      Deepseek then used that data (even paid openai for it), trained a model on that data, and then releases that model for anyone to use.

      While it’s still making use of “stolen data” (that’s a whole semantics discussion I won’t get into right now), I find it far more noble than the former.

  • Acoustic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Bruh, these guys trained their own AI on so called “puplicly available” content. Except it was, and still is, completely without consent from, or compensation to said artists/bloggers/creators etc… Don’t throw rocks when you live in a glass house 🤌