Charlie Stross6d ago

If your corporation's business model relies on lawbreaking, your corporation has no legal legitimacy.

We don't let narcotic cartels and trafficking rings list themselves on the stock exchange: why should OpenAI or Facebook be any different?

Show threadGraceless Hippo6d ago

@cstross

Either copyright exists or it doesn't. The law needs to catch up quick.

Show threadMicroplastics101
@GracelessHippo @cstross It only exists if you are poor. Like the law.
May 24 at 1:46pmWeb
Show threadGraceless Hippo5d ago

@Microplastics101 @cstross

This is currently depressingly accurate

Show threadarestelle4d ago
@Microplastics101 @GracelessHippo @cstross or if you’re rich and someone used your (employees’) work
×
Charlie Stross6d ago

If your corporation's business model relies on lawbreaking, your corporation has no legal legitimacy.

We don't let narcotic cartels and trafficking rings list themselves on the stock exchange: why should OpenAI or Facebook be any different?

Show threadAlexander Goeres ?6d ago
it is outright astonishing to see this and comparing it to the frenzy about copyrights and downloads of pieces of art by normal people ...
Show threadsaxnot ➡️ HOA, GPN5d ago

@jabgoe2089 100 % the same feeling

the powerful V powerless

Show threadMattChippytea6d ago
@cstross requiring permission to use rather than stealing makes the “industry” unworkable eh… shame
Show threadZoidberg For President5d ago

@Wifiwits

@cstross They're not even willing to ask permission, imagine asking them retribution for one's work.

#eattherich to the last one!

Show threadDingo6d ago
@cstross
"Would kill the industry"
Would kill the industry?
Unlike every single creative industry that is having its very lifeblood drained by these ghouls.
Burn it all to the ground.
Show threadOzzelot  5d ago
@electric_gumball
The "AI" industry is one that should not have been born in the first place.
@cstross
Show threadNudeln Al Dente6d ago

@cstross "The former Meta executive"?

It's nice to see that his status as corporate quisling has already overshone his leadership of a major political party & deputy premiership.

Show threadUilebheist6d ago
@NudelnAlDente @cstross Is he really "former" executive or still paid by them "on the quiet" so he can spread their propaganda while they all claim he's not being paid to do so?
Just wondering.
Show threadGraceless Hippo6d ago

@cstross

Either copyright exists or it doesn't. The law needs to catch up quick.

Show threadMarjorieR6d ago
@GracelessHippo @cstross actually the application of copyright law to AI plagiarism just needs to be clarified and then enforced: let's hasten the bankruptcy of these vultures before they do more damage.
Show threadGraceless Hippo5d ago

@marjolica @cstross

That's exactly what I was driving at 👍

Show threadLight5d ago
@marjolica
Or we could use the opportunity to completely get rid of IP altogether.
If artists can't have it, no one can.
@GracelessHippo @cstross
Show threadMicroplastics1015d ago
@GracelessHippo @cstross It only exists if you are poor. Like the law.
Show threadGraceless Hippo5d ago

@Microplastics101 @cstross

This is currently depressingly accurate

Show threadarestelle4d ago
@Microplastics101 @GracelessHippo @cstross or if you’re rich and someone used your (employees’) work
Show threadFazal Majid6d ago

@cstross
Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
- John Harrington

I guess we are going to find out if the same applies to lawlessness.

As for your second assertion, I give you Purdue Pharma (or any of the cryptocurrency scams, but I repeat myself)

Show threadDan Cross6d ago
@cstross "you tech bros talk crime, but you scared of jail." (with apologies to Gang Starr.)
Show threadinpc5d ago
@cross @cstross Lemonade was a popular drink and it still is.
Show threadVic 🇪🇺6d ago
@cstross Kill the industry sounds good, yeah, let's kill the industry then, thanks for clarifying Nick
Show threadSeiðr6d ago
@cstross The 1920's in Spain, mainly in Barcelona, were convulse, and characterised by huge strikes and company owners-hirwd gangsters shooting anarchist labour unions members, of the CNT, and the CNT members replying in kind. Techbros are asking for *it*.
Show threadRadioPhobicSherkPop6d ago

@cstross

My local Jeweller refuses to hand me bags of diamonds.

These woke monsters are killing my diamond selling industry!

Show threadFragarach5d ago

@radiophobicsherkpop @cstross

I can sympathise.
There are a number of farms around us, and I've discovered that they get seriously pissed off if I just go and help myself to a sheep or two.
Some of them have turned nasty when I went and dug up some turnips.
How do they expect me to eat? I should be able to help myself to the results of their work, that's how things work, isn't it?

Show threadLight5d ago

@Fragarach
This is fundamentally wrong.
Copying isn't stealing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD9cdJ6vlMI

The problem is the hypocrisy, not the copying.
@radiophobicsherkpop @cstross

Copying Is Not Theft - Jazzy Tzi

YouTube
Show threaderinaceus6d ago

@cstross This argument is a pattern I've seen repeatedly in the past years. “We can't make profit without collecting huge amounts of personal data about everyone who visits our website!” or “You cannot expect us to secure our software [that handles medical data] before we go live! That inhibits innovation! We'd go broke”.

If your business model does not work without infringing someone's rights, it's not a business model. It's criminal activity.

1/2

Show threaderinaceus6d ago

@cstross The cherry on top is that these companies always claim that “Your privacy is very important to us” or “Security is our highest priority” or “We cherish artists and support them”.

I call bullshit on that.

2/2

Show threadCraig Stewart6d ago

@cstross it seems to me that there is a very simple choice. Kill AI by enforcing existing copyright laws, or take the long way around by letting AI trash copyright laws thereby killing all the creative industries AI needs to steal content from, thereby slowly starving the AI industries of the content they need to improve.

One choice at least leaves us with something valuable. The other will just take longer.

Show threadErik Jonker5d ago
@pmb00cs @cstross it's not that binary I think, many other variants/scenarios are possible
Show threadCraig Stewart5d ago

@ErikJonker @cstross the choice the government has is binary. Enforce copyright laws, or carve out an exception.

The consequences are not so binary. I don't actually think enforcing copyright will kill the AI industry. It'll reduce the amount of profit, certainly, but that's hardly an existential threat. On the other hand, I do think letting AI firms get away with ignoring copyright is going to be devastating to the creative industries, and in the long term also AI training.

Show threadLight5d ago
@pmb00cs
What about the third option.
Delete all IP law.
Then FOSS devs get access to all the AI companies' code!
@ErikJonker @cstross
Show threadLight5d ago
@pmb00cs
Or at least, are able to legally reverse engineer it.
@ErikJonker @cstross
Show threadCraig Stewart5d ago
@light @ErikJonker @cstross while I do not agree with the length of copyright currently I don't think scrapping it is a good idea either. FOSS software depends on strong copyright too. And if we scrap copyright the large companies will take steps to protect their secrets.
Show threadLight5d ago
@pmb00cs
FOSS software only depends on copyright in self-defense.
If there was no copyright, all software would be effectively FOSS.
>And if we scrap copyright the large companies will take steps to protect their secrets.
Like what?
@ErikJonker @cstross
Show threadCraig Stewart4d ago

@light @ErikJonker @cstross like not making it available in any readable form.

Keeping private information private is something that is done currently. Granted, not very well given the prevalence of ransomware with data extraction.

Show threadErik Jonker5d ago
@pmb00cs @cstross some movement is already there, content deals are being made between large media companies and BigTech
Show threadCraig Stewart5d ago
@ErikJonker @cstross because media companies are moving to protect their content now that they've seen AI companies stealing it.
Show threadJna💚5d ago
@pmb00cs @cstross perhaps real creativity will need to go underground. Or is that an extreme response? Cos I believe that we will start to leave the internet: we will have to for our privacy and our sanity.
Show threadLéonard Bertos 🛶 Gamecamp6d ago
Omg let's kill the industry
Show threadj5v6d ago

@cstross (I must show restraint. Oops! I failed...)

I'll hit it with a simple stick: Let's not allow 'industry' to do bad things.

If we can imagine a better world without those industries, then let's have that world.

Let's not preserve the bad ones for purposes of continuity. Or more directly, let's demolish the empires created using systems of exploitation, and create better.

Show threadTripTilt /// tt6d ago
@cstross
well, then die!
Show threadDodo III.6d ago
@cstross If you don't allow me to steal my business is broke? Then be it so.
Show threadLight5d ago
@Dodo_sipping
Copying is not theft
Show threadDodo III.5d ago
@light how is the copying of a creative work NOT stealing? When I am an artist and worked x hours on a painting and you copy that in a fraction of a second it is not theaft? Or better example - I paid x coders for years to write a certain program and you copy it it is not theaft? Does Microsoft know that?
Show threadLight5d ago
@Dodo_sipping
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w
Why Creators Shouldn't Own their Creations (And Why its Good for them too)

YouTube
Show threadDodo III.4d ago
@light If you decide to give anything away for free, fine. Your decision. And a completely different base. Do you want people to join the content of your fridge without asking? Artists can fill their fridge because of creativity they often paid a high price for. Time, money, patience, training. Again, if they decide to give it out for free, fine. If not, and you copy their idea and work, it's theaft.
Show threadEndy6d ago
@cstross If the only thing making you profitable is copywrong, then it's time you reconsider your value in the world.
Show threadJohn Cook6d ago
@cstross I'm quite sure the AI companies would squeal like stuck pigs if others were just to take their work without permission/ payment.
Show threadGeorge B5d ago

@jmc @cstross

They already did throw a shit fit over deepseek: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/technology/openai-deepseek-data-harvest.html

OpenAI Says DeepSeek May Have Improperly Harvested Its Data

The San Francisco start-up claims that its Chinese rival may have used data generated by OpenAI technologies to build new systems.

The New York Times
Show threadMycotropic5d ago

@jmc @cstross

Didn't that happen under a year ago? I thought there were a few Chinese AI bots released that relied on stealing existing architecture from US companies. Did that not happen?

Show threadstaringatclouds5d ago

@mycotropic @jmc @cstross

Yes Deepseek "distilled" (aka "stole") data from ChatGPT

And the people who acquired without asking permission (aka "stole") ChatGPT's training data in the first place are upset about it

While carefully avoiding any mention of copyright of course

https://theconversation.com/openai-says-deepseek-inappropriately-copied-chatgpt-but-its-facing-copyright-claims-too-248863

OpenAI says DeepSeek ‘inappropriately’ copied ChatGPT – but it’s facing copyright claims too

The upside to this war of words? More competition is boosting consumer choice, including with OpenAI’s release over the weekend of a new AI model, o3-mini.

The Conversation
Show threadalcinnz5d ago

@staringatclouds @mycotropic @jmc @cstross I've got reason to doubt that DeepSeek was "distilled" from ChatGPT, since I trust my fellow sysadmins who had remarked on experiencing Chinese DDOS more than I trust either OpenAI or their Chinese counterpart.

But that is the claim OpenAI made.

Show threadmms   6d ago

@cstross but then Chinese will win!

I think they should remove labor laws since they are it.

And democracy.

Show threadCharlie Stross5d ago
@mms What do you think they'll win—a race to build the biggest tulip bubble? LLMs are bullshit, not general artificial intelligence: the folks peddling them are crooks and grifters trying to get all the investment funds to throw money at them.
Show threadmms   5d ago
@cstross I agree. But that is their narrative: if you put any stopping blocks, we will loose to China.
Show threadcrouton5d ago
@cstross hey Nick, the monetary sacrifice that "AI" CEOs need to make in order to kill the the industry, is a sacrifice we're willing to make.
Show threadLars Marowsky-Brée 😷5d ago

@cstross But ... tobacco and alcohol businesses are absolutely on the stock exchange.

It's all about power.

Show threadMelHamnavoe5d ago
@cstross do I really need to say how far Nick Clegg can feck off? JADES-GS-z14-0 which is circa 34Billion light-years away isn’t far enough.
Show threadWilfried Klaebe5d ago

@MelvilleSpence That place you mentioned is in observable distance? Then it's not far enough away, yes.

@cstross

Show threadGraeme 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿5d ago
@cstross Clegg used to seem like a decent guy. Until he went to facecrap - you need a total absence of morality to work there. Now he's an overpaid parrot.
Show threadCharlie Stross5d ago
@pa27 No, Clegg was ALWAYS part of the right wing of the LibDems—the Orange Book group, who were this >< far away from being Tories; Liz Truss was one of theirs in the early 1990s, before she joined the Tory party.