Ufficiale IA - Intelligenza Artificiale | Google Bard e Sparrow VS OpenAI ChatGPT

ButlerianJihad · 28 Giu 2025

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ifies-when-books-can-be-used-for-ai-training/
Stanno andando avanti le cause AI vs Copyright. In particolare negli ultimi giorni sono usciti i verdetti di una causa contro Anthropic e una contro Meta entrambe sul copyright di libri e se sia fair use addestrare le IA su libri senza il consenso dell'autore. Questo negli USA.

Artificial intelligence companies don't need permission from authors to train their large language models (LLMs) on legally acquired books, US District Judge William Alsup ruled Monday.

The first-of-its-kind ruling that condones AI training as fair use will likely be viewed as a big win for AI companies, but it also notably put on notice all the AI companies that expect the same reasoning will apply to training on pirated copies of books—a question that remains unsettled.

In the specific case that Alsup is weighing—which pits book authors against Anthropic—Alsup found that "the purpose and character of using copyrighted works to train LLMs to generate new text was quintessentially transformative" and "necessary" to build world-class AI models.

"Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them—but to turn a hard corner and create something different," Alsup wrote.

Nella causa contro Anthropic il giudice William Alsup si è bevuto completamente la propaganda AI: è fair use addestrare le IA su libri senza il consenso dell'autore purchè siano acquisiti legalmente. Questo perchè secondo il giudice l'output è abbastanza "trasformativo" e non va ad impattare il mercato degli autori, non va a competere in sostanza. Inoltre le IA imparano come gli esseri umani (Santo Gesù, Giuseppe e Maria cosa mi tocca leggere, un giudice che parla come i fanboy sui forum).
Però ha riconosciuto che Anthropic è stata brutta e cattiva a piratare 7 milioni di libri :temeno:

quindi su questo lato la causa andrà avanti.
Ora, negli States si può arrivare a dover pagare fino a 150 mila dollari per ogni copia piratata x 7 milioni fa più di 1 triliardo di dollari.
Sappiamo tutti che non gli faranno mai pagare una cifra del genere e se la caveranno con una multina.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/meta-won-its-ai-fair-use-lawsuit-but-judge-says-authors-are-likely-to-often-win-going-forward/ar-AA1Hu0MH

AI companies scored another victory in court this week. Meta on Wednesday won a motion for partial summary judgment in its favor in Kadrey v. Meta, a case brought on by 13 authors alleging the company infringed on their copyright protections by illegally using their books to train its Llama AI models. The ruling comes two days after a similar victory for Claude maker Anthropic.

"This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful," he wrote. "It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one."

Nella causa contro Meta invece il giudice Vince Chhabria è stato più cauto. Ha riconosciuto il fair use anche per Meta per l'addestramento su libri, ma perchè secondo lui non hanno portato prove abbastanza forti del danno verso autori, perciò avverte che non è un verdetto risolutivo per tutte le future cause di Meta poichè riconosce l'impatto distruttivo che può avere l'IA sul mercato e bisogna valutare caso per caso.

"The purveyors of AI have stolen our work from us and from our publishers, too," the letter reads. The authors call out how AI is trained on their work, without permission and compensation, and yet the programs will never be able to connect with humans like real humans can. For the authors bringing these lawsuits, they may see some victories in subsequent piracy trials (for Anthropic) or new lawsuits. But concerns abound about the overall effect AI will have on writers now and in the future, which is something Chhabria also recognized in his order.

In his analysis, Chhabria focused on the effect AI-generated books have on the existing publishing market, which he saw as the most important factor of the four needed to prove fair use. He wrote extensively about the risk that generative AI and large language models could potentially violate copyright law, and that fair use needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some works, like autobiographies and classic literature such as The Catcher in the Rye, likely couldn't be created with AI, he wrote. However, he noted that "the market for the typical human-created romance or spy novel could be diminished substantially by the proliferation of similar AI-created works."

In other words, AI slop could make human-written books seem less valuable and undercut authors' willingness and ability to create.

Still, Chhabria said that the plaintiffs did not show sufficient evidence to prove harm from how "Meta's models would dilute the market for their own works." The plaintiffs focused their arguments on how Meta's AI models can reproduce exact snippets from their works and how the company's Llama models hurt their ability to license their books to AI companies. These arguments weren't as compelling in Chhabria's eyes -- he called them "clear losers" -- so he sided with Meta.

That's different from the Anthropic ruling, where Judge William Alsup focused on the "exceedingly transformative" nature of the use of the plaintiff's books in the results AI chatbots spit out. Chhabria wrote that while "there is no disputing" that the use of copyrighted material was transformative, the more urgent question was the effect AI systems had on the ecosystem as a whole.

Insomma la guerra non è ancora finita, ma questi verdetti potranno essere usati come precedenti nelle prossime cause.
Per il momento tuttavia le corporazioni miliardarie hanno vinto e quei pezzenti degli autori possono andare allegramente a farsi fottere :tè:

https://www.businessinsider.com/mic...g-ai-no-longer-optional-github-copilot-2025-6

Immaginate di essere obbligati ad usare l'IA al lavoro altrimenti vi licenziano. Avanti così, sempre meglio.

E per oggi basta così, vi saluto con un'altra perla dal nostro meraviglioso Paese

le-splendide-grafiche-ia-del-comune-di-milano-assessorato-v0-3rp11y38pi9f1.jpeg

Potevano assumerlo un grafico al "Comune di Milano - Politiche per il lavoro" :mosconi:

ButlerianJihad · 30 Giu 2025

https://www.wired.com/story/generative-ai-backlash/

Cresce il dissenso verso l'IA :iwanzw:

Before ChatGPT’s release, around 38 percent of US adults were more concerned than excited about increased AI usage in daily life, according to the Pew Research Center. The number shot up to 52 percent by late 2023, as the public reacted to the speedy spread of generative AI. The level of concern has hovered around that same threshold ever since.

Ethical AI researchers have long warned about the potential negative impacts of this technology. The amplification of harmful stereotypes, increased environmental pollution, and potential displacement of workers are all widely researched and reported. These concerns were often previously reserved to academic discourse and online leftists paying attention to labor issues.

This generalized animosity towards AI has not abated over time. Rather, it’s metastasized. LinkedIn users have complained about being constantly prompted with AI-generated questions. Spotify listeners have been frustrated to hear AI-generated podcasts recapping their top-listened songs. Reddit posters have been upset to see AI-generated images on their microwavable noodles at the grocery store.

Tensions are so high that even the suspicion of AI usage is now enough to draw criticism. I wouldn’t be surprised if social media users screenshotted the em dashes in this piece—a supposed giveaway of AI-generated text outputs—and cast suspicions about whether I used a chatbot to spin up sections of the article.

A quanto pare la gente tende a cambiare idea se gli costruisci le centrali a metano dietro casa per alimentare i datacenter :asd:

We saw this in Memphis, Tennessee, recently, where Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI is building a large data center with over 30 methane-gas-powered generators that are spewing harmful exhaust

Pare anche che la gente non sia così contenta di continuare a sgobbare per 2 soldi aspettando di essere rimpiazzata

The impacts of generative AI on the workforce are another core issue that critics are organizing around. “Workers are more intuitive than a lot of the pundit class gives them credit for,” says Merchant. “They know this has been a naked attempt to get rid of people.” The next major shift in public opinion will likely follow previous patterns, occurring when broad swaths of workers feel further threatened and organize in response. And this time, the in-person protests may be just as big as the online backlash.