And just like that, after 24hs of stealing all their IP, we launch:
- Poogle Maps
- Poogle Search
- Poogle Docs
- Poogle AI
- Poogle Phone
- Poogle Browser
And here's the funny part: we claim the theft of their data is "fair use" because we changed the name of the company, and rewrote their code in another language.
Doesn't sound right, does it? So why are Microsoft (OpenAI, Anthropic) and Google financing the biggest act of IP theft in the history of the internet and telling people and businesses that stealing their private data and content to build competing products is somehow "fair use"?
Just like accountants log every single transaction, companies should log every book, article, photo, or video used to train their models, and compensate the copyright holders every time that content is used to generate something new.
The whole "our machines are black boxes, they’re so intelligent we don't even know what they're doing" excuse doesn't cut it anymore.
Stop with the nonsense. It's software, not voodoo.
Let's be honest, the US government and defence sector has massive budgets for AI, and OpenAI could have taken that route, just like SpaceX did. Especially after claiming they're in a tech war with China. But they didn't, which feels contradictory and raises some red flags.
i think that actually would be fair use. i could similarly have an LLM trained on all that data help me write that book. it would still be fair use.
clamping down on fair use by restricting the LLM training is stealing from the public to give to the copyright holders. The copyright holders already have recourse when somebody publishes unlicense copies of their works via take downs and court.
> we stole all the documents stored on Google's private servers and all their proprietary code, research, and everything they've built
This would mostly be covered by trade secret law—not copyright. In the interest of continuing, I will, however, pretend that none of that is considered trade secrets.
> used it to create a new company called Poogle that competes directly with them.
Yes, you can create stuff based on documentation. You can copy something one-for-one in functionality as long as the implementation is different.
> we claim the theft of their data is "fair use" because we changed the name of the company
Yes, avoiding trademark infringement is important.
> rewrote their code in another language.
This is probably fine as long as the new code isn't substantially similar (i.e., a mechanical translation of) the old code.
If copyright were significantly shorter, then I could see the case for adding more restrictions.
The US started off not acknowledging foreign copyrights for a long time-- until it had a large enough base of material it wanted reciprocally protected.
If not adopting these rules grants you the ability to produce SOTA AI's while most of the US can't we can expect it to be widespread.
This actually gives me a little hope-- the US cutting it's own throat this way vs other countries would be better than granting google and facebook a monopoly.
The data is definitely a critical piece, but they are the only companies with the cash, hardware and talent to train frontier AI models from scratch. (The models that are fine-tuned by everyone else, to be clear.)
I don't see that changing either; there is no incentive to make training cheaper and more accessible.
I was hoping that this bill would make it possible to _retroactively_ seek legal action for copyrighted data in data sets, but, yeah, as journaled here, this will amount to a clause on an optional-but-not-optional EULA to give them "permission" to do what they were already doing, perhaps even more flagrantly.
If everyone else is playing by the rules except China, it's easier to hold them accountable.
If China trains better models than the rest of the world by using all the data it can acquire, it will simply win. You can’t throw China in jail for not playing by same rules as other countries, you can’t economically isolate it longer than a few years, and even then 70-80% of the world won’t care about embargoes even in those few years. The best solutions will diffuse into the world eventually.
If you're talking about military power, where AI gives an edge in cyber security and warfare, then China has already won. They are ahead in tech, AI and quantum computing. The moment you step foot in China you realise they're easily ten years ahead. And that didn't happen overnight. It's the result of long term investment in infrastructure, education, and technology.
The arches of power are shifting, and the US can't stop it. Companies like OpenAI are built on the promise of developing a secret weapon called AGI that will rebuild the US economy, solve social problems, and give the US a technological edge to control the rest of the world.
But that's never going to happen. It's a nice story they tell politicians and regulators to get away with theft and also get investors like Microsoft to give them more infra and money.
Question: Did OpenAI made its API publicly available to generate revenue, or share responsibility and distribute the ethical risk with developers, startups, and enterprise customers, hoping that widespread use would eventually influence legal systems over time?
Let's be honest, the US government and defence sector has massive budgets for AI, and OpenAI could have taken that route, just like SpaceX did. Especially after claiming they're in a tech war with China. But they didn't, which feels contradictory and raises some red flags.
Drone tech probably gives China more of an advantage of Quantum computing in military applications, which everyone is still scratching their head about and anyways...is just a better form of encryption. AI is still up in the air, China still can't economically produce their own high end GPUs, while America can't be bothered to develop infrastructure and skills for rare earths, etc...
But if America and Europe cripples themselves in AI development via rigid copyright rules, ya, its a complete win for China.
Frieren•6mo ago
This part is even more important. Personal data is being used to train models. All is very dystopian with a cyber punk flavor.
pyman•6mo ago