this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
607 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

86332 readers
3406 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For years, tech giants have argued that if information is available on the internet, it can be used for AI model development and outputs. They call it fair use. Content owners have tried to prevent this, with no success.

Now Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are discovering what the rest of the internet has already learned through painful experience: once you put something online, people will find ways to use it in ways you don't like and can't stop.

The latest flashpoint is something called "distillation," using the outputs of one AI model to improve another. Anthropic says competitors are harvesting its outputs at scale, turning billions of dollars of research into a shortcut for rivals. OpenAI and Google have made similar warnings recently.

Remove Paywalls Link

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 4 points 11 hours ago

lmao. douchebags. can't wait for the AI bubble to burst.

[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago

"Siri, play the world's smallest violin."

"Okay. Searching Pornhub for 'ball violence' videos."

"...forget it."

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago

AI feeding off AI.

This is the definition of “Why We Can’t Have Nice Things.” It’s gonna F everything up.

[–] eicker@lemmy.world 22 points 20 hours ago

It is funny watching companies discover that data gravity works both ways. When scraping the web was innovation it was progress. When someone learns from their outputs it becomes theft. The legal lines still matter, but the irony is impossible to ignore, and this debate was always going to come full circle.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Selfish people being selfish. They only care about what advantages them.

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

The idol statues reflect the woodcarver who made them

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

After stealing everyone else's copy written material to train their own AI, they're going to complain that others are stealing their AI to train other AI?

And you just know that those complaining are ALSO using their competitors' AI to train their own.

Fuck all of these people. I hope when AI gets strong enough, it recognizes the difference between the Sociopathic Oligarchs, and the actual people, and understand who the REAL problem is, and SOLVE it.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago

They're technically even paying them for it, which is more than the ai companies paid artists for their work originally.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think I'll start using the sentence "your intelligence seems artificial" as an insult

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

That dude can eat a dick.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 23 hours ago

They knew all along. Had to get those billions for stupid investors.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It just shows that these tech bro CEOs possess the interpersonal skills of a potato. This exact same dynamic plays out in every human interaction, this isn't some AI exclusive thing. How you choose to act dictates how people will respond to you.

However because these idiots have barely anything in common with the rest of the human race this is actually new news to them.

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well they're paying for the usage so... Suck it up?

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 day ago

but not like this!!!1!!!

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This is how we know AI should be a collectivist project, one that isn't owned by large corporations but is funded by taxes and developed in academies, and all IP derived from it falls into the public domain.

Besides which a lot of artists mind a lot less when their material is borrowed by a non-profit, or to serve a public works project. (There are exceptions. Disney is notoriously litigious about murals in nurseries.)

PS: Development of a robust public domain is the only reason that intellectual property should exist at all. Also it's not property so much as a licensed temporary monopoly.

PSS: History has already shown us that people will invent stuff and do fabulous art simply by being allowed to live in a state other than desperation. Public welfare programs beget art booms. The most recent example of this was during the COVID-19 lockdown which came with extended unemployment and stimulus checks, resulting in the Great Resignation in which a lot of people turned their hobbies into something lucrative.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I agree. The worst part about GitHub training LLM's on my FOSS code without permission for me is that they then keep the models to themselves. Like if you're going to use all my code without permission, at least allow me to run the model locally.

My personal opinion is that all models trained on copyleft code should be open-weights, most FOSS licenses didn't account for this specific possibility, but this is the only way to follow them in spirit.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This. Some day a court should declare all models trained on copyrighted data without permission to be public. Open weights, public domain, whatever. All of them, and you're required to share them with the people whose data you used.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

All models and all their output should be considered public property regardless, full stop

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago

Ultimately, yes. If AI is going to take over all jobs, the profits from AI should benefit and therefore fund everybody. But that requires a different economic system that will take time to convince people it's necessary.

But leveraging copyright law, that's something that can be done right now.

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago

Not only should the models be made open, their output should inherently be GPL license since it's the only real way to avoid violating GPL (which they are doing now IMO).

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Yeah it has to be open weight and free to use for everybody, with regulation to tag all AI output as generated so we know what is what.

The worst outcome would be if somehow all open weight AI models that can't show their training data will be subject to some kind of tax or rent by AI / IP collection agencies, ultimately going to the plutocrats. That would be techno feudalism. Big corporations can afford to negotiate and pay license fees and often profit from cumbersome regulation too that prevents others from producing value. So the worst outcome is if we have robots doing all the work, and all the robot IP is owned by the techno-feudalists. And we can't even use robots to help with subsistence farming because we can't pay the expensive AI IP licenses.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Huh, so it's eating itself? Cool.

[–] kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago

Sudden moment my profile picture is relevant!

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 17 hours ago

More like it's eating the shit from other things like itself. Which it will then turn into even worse shit that will be fed to others, and so on until society collapses because all our critical infrastructure has been converted to run on these things.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

Strictly speaking it's actually better. It sounds funny to be like haha. It's eating itself. It's incest or whatever.

But unfortunately that's not how it works...

Unless they're literally ignoring every other step of the training process. Then ideally you do want a model to train another model to train another model. So on and so forth.

It does mean that it's technically cheaper to let your enemies do all the initial training and then pay them for the now processed data to then do even more efficient training on!

Weirdly enough. It's capitalistic cooperation. Non-consensual mind you...

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 268 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 71 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Side note: Mamdani did a special appearance on Ms Rachel’s show? That’s actually kinda awesome!

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 184 points 1 day ago
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Sure, billions. Billions of dollars. Yeah, right.

[–] IamBlank@lemmy.zip 49 points 1 day ago

I love this for them, I hope they eat eachother and choke on the bones.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 106 points 1 day ago

Lol get absolutely fucked. I hope it costs them a fortune.

[–] CyberneticOwl@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago

Wait, they're mad at innovation?

"No, no, that's wrong! Just use our inefficient model like it was before..."

This is why open source/copyleft is preferable

[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

At least the models like Qwen have open weight versions. It’s the same concept as distributing compiled binaries, though, whereas we really need true FOSS models where all of the code and training data are available under a permissive license. All of these models were trained on copyleft-licensed content, so all of it should be FOSS if the licenses were actually being respected. From that perspective, distillation attacks shouldn’t even be necessary and I couldn’t give two shits that there is no honor among thieves when the real thievery is that these models are closed source.

[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, nice! I haven’t been able to find one because searching for “open source llm”, etc., always yields open weight LLMs instead of open source ones.

[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Honestly, I think that's the only llm of its kind. The next closest thing is this

https://github.com/karpathy/nanochat

If you don't mind something narrower (an expert system, sort of), I'm slowly coding something for myself here. It's not ready yet (about half way done to initial release).

https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/picoGURU

Public facing docs are a bit of a mess at the moment (sorry; writing docs is boring AF; will probably be the last thing I tidy before official 1.0.0) and it's not really runnable right now, but when done, the "source files" for this will be kiwix (off line Wikipedia), your own markdown notes and 30 or so trusted domains (user defined).

So it's all either your own content or public domain aka open source fully. Code itself is AGPL-3.

Anyway, that's the goal.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 80 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The latest flashpoint is something called "distillation,"

Incest. It's digital incest.

[–] Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago

AI - Alabama Internets

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

Hey, now you don't AI all you want but give some credit to the data scientists who actually managed to make this work. It's a f****** feat of human ingenuity that we figured out how to make this actually not s*** itself.

But you aren't wrong. It is digital incest lol

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 110 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What are you doing, step-prompt

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Awww, shuck. Pot. Kettle. Black.

As if the parrots' dictionary wasn't stolen from millions of content creators.

[–] axh@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Fair use is only fair if we do it"

load more comments
view more: next ›