@eff did the EFF change on this? 😳

@eff EFF thinks they are so galaxy brained in their own heads they espouse a truely stupid take on AI.

@eff this is a shit position and you should be ashamed.

@eff No sane person loves transformative work that boils the ocean and makes hardware and electricity expensive

@eff 😫 It's really not.

@eff I'm surprised you're bragging about your staff attorney's boneheaded comment.

P.S. What are you patting yourself on the back for? Having a your staff attorney quoted in an article? I used to think EFF was cool but shameless self promotion is the opposite of cool. It's lame and gross.

@eff Even if creating a generative model is transformative, selling the use of one as a for-profit service to undercut creative artists is preventing the kind of creation that copyright was intended to foster.

But since the generation of statistically similar outputs ensures that the further-derived generated outputs are minimally transformative of the sources, it’s misleading to describe the model itself as transformative.

These services should be required to license their sources.

@eff Well, that is the end of me supporting your apparently traitorous org.

Get the fuck out of here EFF with this take.

@eff I did NOT expect this from you. Please reconsider.

@eff this really is a disappointing, "not donating again"-level of take

@eff yooooo this sucks

i mean, completely unsurprising from y’all at this point, but regardless. sucks. big sucks. sucks shit.

@eff oh boy

@eff

I remain unconvinced.

As a layperson, I’ve been told that the point of copyright has been to make sure the writer and their publisher can earn a livelihood, so they may live to write another days

I know if I were to consistently copy or distribute copyrighted articles in such a way that it affects these companies bottom line to the point where they downsize, they’d come for me with an arsenal of lawyers.

So there are consequences for us small people.

But along comes OpenAI and the gang, and because they transform these copyrighted works into a model, it’s suddenly alright if they don’t license it even though they actually replace a whole numbers of writers?

That doesn’t add up to me.

I don’t buy the hand waving in this article about “it’s not replacing jobs” either. It shouldn’t, but it does, right now, because management isn’t always smart.

I think copyright is flawed and a bandaid for a not-working economic system, but you can’t rip off the bandaid before you fixed the system.

So that’s a no from me.

@eff bye