this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
503 points (97.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54609 readers
676 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.intai.tech/post/43759

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/949452

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sam Altman are in massive trouble. OpenAI is getting sued in the US for illegally using content from the internet to train their LLM or large language models

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] god@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (24 children)

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

[–] Changetheview@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Legal basis for suing a company that uses another company’s product/creations without approval seems like a fairly pretty straightforward intellectual property issue.

Legal basis for increased taxes on revenue from AI or automation in general could be created in the same way that any tax is created: through legislation. Income tax didn’t exist before, now it does. Tax breaks for mortgage interest didn’t use it exist, now it does. Levying higher taxes on companies that rely heavily on automated systems and creating a UBI out of the revenue might not exist right now, but it can, if the right people are voted in to pass the right laws.

[–] tony_lasagna@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think a UBI makes sense, for many people it will just be extra money in their pocket to spend which continues the endless inflation in prices until the gain disappears.

More efficient targeting of benefits to those who need it with that money would actually help reduce inequality

[–] smokeythebear@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Every single example of means testing has been more expensive than just distributing the benefits to the people that ask for them.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)