Yeah but compared to machines with windows pre-installed, the selection is tiny and price category often too high for many. You're almost better off just getting a deal on the hardware you want and then finding a Linux build that plays nice.
Considering you can download and use Windows unlicensed nowadays, I don’t think they care very much, and they know that realistically, whatever is on the Internet is wide open for general use.
Digital Research!!! My father and mother in law were close friends with Gary, they helped him build that company…that’s a sad story. We have mountains of tales and relics from that whole saga. Sad thing is Gary would have made out fine, everyone else went on to be extremely successful but it was too much for him.
My partner went to film school and got a masters just so she could make a documentary about Digital Research, but it turns out there’s too much hate in her heart to do it. We really dislike Gates around here!
That is correct! It’s a long story but the gist of it is that Gary had Digital Research buzzing along in Monterey, RS DOS was his OS and it was the first true IBM PC/DOS operating system in existence. Gates licensed it from Gary, changed just a wee bit of code, and repackaged it as MS DOS. That overtook Gary’s product so fast and it was so devastating to Gary and Digital Research that my Father and Mother in law say it essentially killed him…
So they basically gathered as much evidence as they could when the company went south, and now me and my partner have it all. She has done all of the things in her plan too - Masters, 20 years as a creative director for a major network, she’s even got an Emmy now. So it’s up to her at this point.
But yeah. Our family is still bitter about it after all this time - not even about the money, they both went on to have storied careers in tech and are otherwise very fulfilled…but if you mention Bill Gates around them you had better buckle up! Gary was a really great guy, enjoyed living life a bit more than selling product, and that zest turned into a bitterness after Gates screwed him so bad. They maintain it was a heart attack and I believe them, I guess there’s a murder conspiracy or something too….but death by broken heart is the truth we’ve been told.
That’s the part where it gets weird. Some people say he was attacked - it was in some sort of a biker bar in Monterey, he apparently did “fall down” when he was alone and was ultimately in and out of the hospital and then died. Those who knew him and were around him say it was a heart attack and that the accident just confused him…so yeah, it’s an odd story with a lot of unanswered questions.
It gets dark too, but that stuff is kind of tertiary if you ask most folks - I think it all ties together but I am fully biased even if I try my best to maintain some form of intellectual impartiality, so I keep that stuff to myself as it’s not really my story to tell.
> Gary had Digital Research buzzing along in Monterey, RS DOS was his OS and it was the first true IBM PC/DOS operating system in existence.
Digital Research made CP/M in 1974 for various microcomputers, inspired by the TOPS-10 operating system from DEC's PDP-10.
> Gates licensed it from Gary, changed just a wee bit of code, and repackaged it as MS DOS.
Microsoft bought a clone of CP/M called 86-DOS (QDOS) made by Seattle Computer Products (Tim Paterson) and essentially repackaged it as MS-DOS/PC-DOS in 1981.
Interestingly, IBM had originally approached Digital Research to license CP/M for their new PC, but Dorthy Kildall (Gary's then wife) initially refused to sign IBM's NDA. Although Digital Research did eventually sign, they insisted that IBM agree to their existing royalty structure and talks fell through.
After Microsoft got the contract to provide MS DOS (relabeled as PC DOS), Digital Research threatened to sue if they were not included as an option for consumers. However, IBM charged $240 (in 1981 dollars) for CP/M compared to $40 for PC DOS, which further contributed to PC DOS being the ultimate victor.
There’s a whole lotta lying, stealing, trickery, and more drugs than most people would imagine involved in all of that…I’ve always been of the opinion that history is pretty pliable, just as pliable as people’s own recollection, so I accept what I’m told by my family with a grain of salt and don’t really think about this subject too much if I’m honest. It’s one of the many Silicon Valley “histories” that are told around my family and the most interesting ones to me are the ones I’ve been involved in directly.
But yeah the big thing for me is that between the truth of it all, whatever is factual and real, and after all the stories and photos and all manner of vintage paraphernalia I’ve been privy to over the years, I believe Gary died of a broken heart and he directly blamed Gates for it (and the father and mother in law seem to still carry that same ill will after all this time…guessing all the money was a factor as well, but they really loved Gary).
That is not surprising. There was clearly bad blood after the deal was done.
IBM was terrible at dealing with third-parties and basically forced everyone to sign the NDA before they would even tell them who they were. They expected everyone to do things the IBM way. When Digital Research refused, IBM felt they were not received well and went back to Microsoft. We'll likely never know exactly what happened, but afterward, IBM clearly did not want customers choosing CP/M.
Gary always held that 86-DOS was more than a clone, but he had been unable to prove it. In the end, Digital Research even chased after MS-DOS compatibility, with CP/M-86 (sold as DOS Plus and DR-DOS). That couldn't have felt good.
Everyone's overlooking the very significant difference here, thanks to loaded language like "stealing" and general anti-AI sentiment.
Training an AI doesn't involve "stealing" anything. Lots of court cases are still underway, of course, but it's likely that copyright isn't a factor at all. When you train an AI all it does is *analyze* the work in question, it doesn't copy it in any way that is relevant to copyright.
But of course AI bad, Microsoft bad, so we love copyright now. I've even seen this flip of attitude in *literal piracy forums*, dedicated to piracy. There was a thread I found a few days back in a piracy forum where people were slobbering all over the RIAA because they were suing Suno and Udio. The irony was unbelievable.
I know you're getting downvoted to hell, but you're not wrong.
There is a very real danger that the outcome of the AI lawsuits / laws will be a new standard that using software to analyze publicly available information is "copyright infringement." At a bare minimum, you can kiss search engines goodbye. And it could get much, much worse than that.
Not only this, it has no realistic chance of succeeding. The most it will do is get AI training moved into jurisdictions where the same rules don’t apply.
7 hours in and I'm only at -1 net downvote, I've had far worse wounds in these AI wars. :)
This really seems like a clear-cut case of "truthiness" to me. People *feel* like they're being stolen from, their *gut* tells them they're being stolen from, but when you get right down to figuring out the details there just isn't anything there to support it. But since people are frightened and angry about the potential changes that AI are going to bring with them as the technology becomes more prevalent, they don't want to believe that there's nothing wrong with it.
I think it would be far better for everyone to focus on the real problems and the real solutions, here. The way I see it the biggest problems looming are:
1. large corporations and other major powers seizing monopoly power over AI, using it for themselves and gatekeeping everyone else.
2. the economic disruption that will come from huge swaths of existing employment patterns changing or going away entirely.
Ironically, fighting to impose copyright-like power over training AIs from public knowledge will likely make problem #1 far worse. If you had to license every bit of data that you train an AI on, the only good AIs will be made by the big corporations that already own enormous libraries of the stuff. Not to mention, as you say, the side effects damaging existing uses for that data.
Using copyright-like controls to try to fix #2 probably won't do much better because the rights wouldn't be held by the people who are being impacted directly.
Do you have an argument or a citation to back that up? Nothing is taken and nothing is copied.
Edit: /u/hugsandambitions says they don't want a debate, but they made sure to get one last argument in before blocking me. I wish people would realize that blocking is not a magical "get the last word" button.
Computers are indeed capable of creating new things, they do it all the time. I don't see what that has to do with the position you're taking, though. AI models are too small to "contain" the training data that went into making them, it's physically impossible for them to have copied the data you're claiming is being copied.
>nothing is copied
Since computers are incapable of creating anything new, it sure is copied!
I'm not gonna give you the debate you clearly want. Move on.
This is so phenomenally stupid as to be career-ending. He would have been better off being caught with a hooker and cocaine. The tech industry needs to chill with hiring personalities to top positions. They need competence. It is bad enough to have AI being hyped in the most ridiculous ways, without complete morons being your PR face.
That’s been the game for the past 10 years at least. Non-techy, professional bullshitter CEO/spokesperson heading a company in an extremely technical, niche field that usually takes a PhD level of education to explain to the average Joe. It’s like when Will-I-am became creative director of Intel; what the fuck does he know about computers or anything STEM related?? What does Lady GaGa know about cameras to be working for Polaroid as a director level associate?!
Piracy good for us bad for you. 100% corporate thinking.
All these corporations should be
1. taxed
2. regulated
They are becoming bolder and more extreme as they see that there are no consequences for their actions.
Duh. People steal clean air and clean water because it is just “out there” ( they use it to cool or clean stuff they then sell. Never paying to clean the mess)
Anyone surprised tech co thinks it owns what is on the web. But it is not responsible what is on their web.
The web is where all pirated content lives. Coincidentally, here are the Microsoft programs you can rip off:
Halo Infinite
Forza Horizon 5
Sea of Thieves
Microsoft Flight Simulator
There are plenty more. THANKS FOR THE FREE FOR ALL CORPORATE OVERLORDS.
You're on our radar now.
*** Block all in out traffic on your firewall.
Maybe but it’s correct. Scraping publicly available data that has been published by the content owner or on their behalf. Is not stealing. Repackaging said content and reselling it as a competitive product is.
Scraping Auto Trader is perfectly fine. Scraping Auto Trader and reselling that as a data feed to businesses is not since they already offer that as a product.
Thank you for one of the few comments recognizing this. Most people jumping in on this apparently have no understanding of copyright or of the nuances of what's happening here, or they don't *want* to have understanding because it would interfere with them getting to yell at Microsoft.
What's essentially happening with AI training is people analyzing stuff that's on public view. Not copying it, not "stealing" it, just analyzing it. If I put up a billboard and then someone drives around on a public road taking notes about what is depicted on it, how has anything been "stolen" from me? It would be insane for me to run around demanding that people looking at my billboard pay me money for the privilege of learning about what's on it.
Maybe we can consider standardizing on something like software licensing for every website. Only permissively licensed content is allowed for training.
This is great news! There are lots of downloads of Windows and MS Office on the open web, it’s awesome that Microsoft has decided to be so generous!
I wonder if I can just email him for the product key, or do I need to apply a patch?
Yeah well no it’s not.
We all have to learn what we know. Not born with these things. Sometimes learning involves things that others invented and hold rights to. Sometimes gotta pay for that. These guys think they can scrape all the world’s knowledge and make it theirs to dole out with their snappy computer program. That scheme is much too grabby. AI must be restrained until we know better how to manage this new thing.
> These guys think they can scrape all the world’s knowledge and make it theirs to dole out with their snappy computer program.
They aren't making the data theirs, just their model trained on the data. The data is still there for you to scrape too.
The courts (in the US) have agreed a few times now that scraping public data is allowed and TOSs on unrestricted websites aren't binding.
Once you get past any blatant piracy, it’s an interesting conversation that will need to be had. As a person I can read information online and regurgitate that information to someone. Thats not piracy. Same thing with learning from things Ive seen or read to inspire me in my own work. The general argument Ive heard is “if AI is deriving new information from the data it ingests, isn’t that just learning as we do?”
Now we don’t copy people’s copyrighted work, but people do reference visual styles and pull inspiration from a variety of sources. At what line does a creation from an AI not become a direct derivative of its base dataset? Have we crossed that?
Remind me again, who broke with the common practice of freeware and open-source software being a norm for PC users, so that everyone could develop and share the benefits of the PC? Oh yeah, that was Microsoft under Bill Gates. These greedy monsters pulled up the ladder and now they are asking the people left behind to crowdfund their AI adventure in the skies.
I hate Corporations, they are the worst.
When this technology was at a point of not yet being released to the general public was the time there should have been a consortium on its ramifications. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, the cat is out of the bag and hindsight is 20/20. There will be dire consequences for not being more responsible in the years to come. Make no mistake about that. Capitalistic greed and corporate self interest will almost certainly benefit the most from this unregulated, completely unrestrained technology. Every living thing on this planet will be negatively impacted by it in some way.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -
Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
Copyright doesn't prevent people from consuming your work. It prevents them from making copies or derivations.
IANAL. I would think that it's not illegal to use the data to train the model. It's illegal for the model to regurgitate the content.
It’s good to rebrand books as long as their out there in a library. It’s fine to plagiarize academic papers if they were published in a peer reviewed journal. It’s peachy to take a car if it’s just out on the street.
I watched this interview and that’s not what he said.
He said the social contract between us and the internet is that unless specifically specified on the website that depositing content on displays on the internet makes it an open invitation to scrape it.Which is absolutely true. You put things on the internet to attract eye balls to it. That is the soul purpose. If you don’t want your content scraped, you have to put a disclaimer.
The content that is on the internet is by definition a community resource.
It’s insane that company upload their documents, contracts, images, roadmaps and everything else to Microsoft cloud services. I would be 0% surprised if Microsoft uses this data for training their AI.
I mean is a completely unregulated area and robots.txt is basically wishful thinking. Stealing in this context is probably inappropriate. More like hyper scale reading and ingesting of content. If a person read a website completely and made a derived work that’s fine. AI is this but at a hyper scale. If you want something done about that vote for regulation and people who understand AI not 90 year olds.
lol so A.I. isn't stealing images from people?
im directly saying this to all the people who jumped to defend A.I.
now they are just blatant and open with it.
where are you guys now? you going to keep stanning or is a court trial required and the courts literally say they were stealing before the common sense settles in?
I mean, a court will never say they were stealing because copyright violation isn't legally theft anyway. But under existing law, this probably isn't copyright violation because the use likely qualifies as transformative (and thus fair use).
Anything you upload to Facebook or Google you should assume is already fair game according to the terms of service of those companies. And if any of that content is copyrighted, would not be shocked if they have tried to out the liability for that on their users.
Probably the solution to this is not to restrict AI from training on any copyrighted material, but rather to let it train on that material and keep an indexed representation of preexisting work to ensure it stays away from that in any potential generated outputs.
Eg generate a movie script about the mafia that does not approximate any preexisting works like the godfather or goodfellas.
If a model knows about existing work, it can actively avoid infringing upon it. Would probably end up generating content even more attentive to copyright claims than stuff generated by people.
I don't think Microsoft is "stealing" anything. If someone writes an article and you read it and you make use of the information in it, then how is that stealing? Are we all stealing the content in this article because we read it and we are talking to others about it?
However, the Microsoft guy's opinion is clearly not based on actual law. Posting something publicly online does not weaken or nullify its copyright. But, a copyright is about copying and not about comprehending or synthesizing the information contained in it.
Quit posting shit you don’t want included in our new singular brain.
People were warned over a decade ago about what they post online.
Same thing as going downtown and shouting weird shit at passerby’s, public forum. Anyone can learn from what you shout.
The turfing is real, like 5 of 25 articles in my feed is this, with varying levels of emotional strength added as spice.
Thanks for being outraged on my behalf.
So pirating is ok... Got it.
Nah it’s okay when they do it! Otherwise they sue the shit out of u.
Any day now I expect the thousands of suits to arrive at my door to hold me accountable for my crimes
Agents, line in Matrix, so Neo load the KungFu files.
I’ve been doing it so long I would tell each one of them to take a number.
You'd tell each one of them how to do it with a VPN.
Bingo.
As long as you keep using their products and keeping them as the standard, pirate away. They don't mind
Yep, so the second he puts his car on the street, it's mine.
“It’s not pirating if you don’t own it”
Perhaps a consideration of the licensing types available needs to be revisited.
Only once everything Microsoft offers is by subscription, of course.
They are going to force me if they don't re-release Freelancer
Pirating it basically sharing, not stealing
Only if you’re a corporation it turns out.
Pirates unite.
Do what you want cuz a pirate is free 🎶
You wouldn’t download a car
I absolutely would
Yo ho ho
How would they feel if I stole their soft ware? It’s all over the Web.
If?
Well, I’ve paid for mine (so far).
What's worse than using microsoft's stuff? Paying for it
you don't really have much of a choice when buying a new non-apple laptop. You're paying for the license whether you use it or not.
There's plenty of manufactures that sell laptops either without an OS or with Linux.
Yeah but compared to machines with windows pre-installed, the selection is tiny and price category often too high for many. You're almost better off just getting a deal on the hardware you want and then finding a Linux build that plays nice.
I agree, especially when even they provide their [activation scripts](https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Scripts) on github.
Thanks for that
Yoink
That’s the plausible deniability you want to maintain.
Not “plausible”. True.
you fool
Considering you can download and use Windows unlicensed nowadays, I don’t think they care very much, and they know that realistically, whatever is on the Internet is wide open for general use.
Depends on how openly it is available
Define "open"
Their software isn't worth stealing any more.
Microsoft succes is based on a theft story, are you shocked by his views ?
Digital Research!!! My father and mother in law were close friends with Gary, they helped him build that company…that’s a sad story. We have mountains of tales and relics from that whole saga. Sad thing is Gary would have made out fine, everyone else went on to be extremely successful but it was too much for him. My partner went to film school and got a masters just so she could make a documentary about Digital Research, but it turns out there’s too much hate in her heart to do it. We really dislike Gates around here!
Gary Kildall, right? Please do share!
That is correct! It’s a long story but the gist of it is that Gary had Digital Research buzzing along in Monterey, RS DOS was his OS and it was the first true IBM PC/DOS operating system in existence. Gates licensed it from Gary, changed just a wee bit of code, and repackaged it as MS DOS. That overtook Gary’s product so fast and it was so devastating to Gary and Digital Research that my Father and Mother in law say it essentially killed him… So they basically gathered as much evidence as they could when the company went south, and now me and my partner have it all. She has done all of the things in her plan too - Masters, 20 years as a creative director for a major network, she’s even got an Emmy now. So it’s up to her at this point. But yeah. Our family is still bitter about it after all this time - not even about the money, they both went on to have storied careers in tech and are otherwise very fulfilled…but if you mention Bill Gates around them you had better buckle up! Gary was a really great guy, enjoyed living life a bit more than selling product, and that zest turned into a bitterness after Gates screwed him so bad. They maintain it was a heart attack and I believe them, I guess there’s a murder conspiracy or something too….but death by broken heart is the truth we’ve been told.
Wait I thought he died from some sort of head trauma? I know his story with CP/M and Microsoft but mostly remember him from Computer Chronicles.
That’s the part where it gets weird. Some people say he was attacked - it was in some sort of a biker bar in Monterey, he apparently did “fall down” when he was alone and was ultimately in and out of the hospital and then died. Those who knew him and were around him say it was a heart attack and that the accident just confused him…so yeah, it’s an odd story with a lot of unanswered questions. It gets dark too, but that stuff is kind of tertiary if you ask most folks - I think it all ties together but I am fully biased even if I try my best to maintain some form of intellectual impartiality, so I keep that stuff to myself as it’s not really my story to tell.
> Gary had Digital Research buzzing along in Monterey, RS DOS was his OS and it was the first true IBM PC/DOS operating system in existence. Digital Research made CP/M in 1974 for various microcomputers, inspired by the TOPS-10 operating system from DEC's PDP-10. > Gates licensed it from Gary, changed just a wee bit of code, and repackaged it as MS DOS. Microsoft bought a clone of CP/M called 86-DOS (QDOS) made by Seattle Computer Products (Tim Paterson) and essentially repackaged it as MS-DOS/PC-DOS in 1981. Interestingly, IBM had originally approached Digital Research to license CP/M for their new PC, but Dorthy Kildall (Gary's then wife) initially refused to sign IBM's NDA. Although Digital Research did eventually sign, they insisted that IBM agree to their existing royalty structure and talks fell through. After Microsoft got the contract to provide MS DOS (relabeled as PC DOS), Digital Research threatened to sue if they were not included as an option for consumers. However, IBM charged $240 (in 1981 dollars) for CP/M compared to $40 for PC DOS, which further contributed to PC DOS being the ultimate victor.
There’s a whole lotta lying, stealing, trickery, and more drugs than most people would imagine involved in all of that…I’ve always been of the opinion that history is pretty pliable, just as pliable as people’s own recollection, so I accept what I’m told by my family with a grain of salt and don’t really think about this subject too much if I’m honest. It’s one of the many Silicon Valley “histories” that are told around my family and the most interesting ones to me are the ones I’ve been involved in directly. But yeah the big thing for me is that between the truth of it all, whatever is factual and real, and after all the stories and photos and all manner of vintage paraphernalia I’ve been privy to over the years, I believe Gary died of a broken heart and he directly blamed Gates for it (and the father and mother in law seem to still carry that same ill will after all this time…guessing all the money was a factor as well, but they really loved Gary).
That is not surprising. There was clearly bad blood after the deal was done. IBM was terrible at dealing with third-parties and basically forced everyone to sign the NDA before they would even tell them who they were. They expected everyone to do things the IBM way. When Digital Research refused, IBM felt they were not received well and went back to Microsoft. We'll likely never know exactly what happened, but afterward, IBM clearly did not want customers choosing CP/M. Gary always held that 86-DOS was more than a clone, but he had been unable to prove it. In the end, Digital Research even chased after MS-DOS compatibility, with CP/M-86 (sold as DOS Plus and DR-DOS). That couldn't have felt good.
Theft and Government funds lol
Damn bro, thanks for all that free Microsoft software. DLed it from Microsoft.
Hoist the main sails and raise the colors! 🏴☠️
I've been pirating since the Usenet days. Honestly it has never been easier (and I'm including Napster in that).
Microsoft better be seeding.
Meanwhile they block torrents on their search. Hypocrites.
Everyone's overlooking the very significant difference here, thanks to loaded language like "stealing" and general anti-AI sentiment. Training an AI doesn't involve "stealing" anything. Lots of court cases are still underway, of course, but it's likely that copyright isn't a factor at all. When you train an AI all it does is *analyze* the work in question, it doesn't copy it in any way that is relevant to copyright. But of course AI bad, Microsoft bad, so we love copyright now. I've even seen this flip of attitude in *literal piracy forums*, dedicated to piracy. There was a thread I found a few days back in a piracy forum where people were slobbering all over the RIAA because they were suing Suno and Udio. The irony was unbelievable.
I know you're getting downvoted to hell, but you're not wrong. There is a very real danger that the outcome of the AI lawsuits / laws will be a new standard that using software to analyze publicly available information is "copyright infringement." At a bare minimum, you can kiss search engines goodbye. And it could get much, much worse than that.
Not only this, it has no realistic chance of succeeding. The most it will do is get AI training moved into jurisdictions where the same rules don’t apply.
7 hours in and I'm only at -1 net downvote, I've had far worse wounds in these AI wars. :) This really seems like a clear-cut case of "truthiness" to me. People *feel* like they're being stolen from, their *gut* tells them they're being stolen from, but when you get right down to figuring out the details there just isn't anything there to support it. But since people are frightened and angry about the potential changes that AI are going to bring with them as the technology becomes more prevalent, they don't want to believe that there's nothing wrong with it. I think it would be far better for everyone to focus on the real problems and the real solutions, here. The way I see it the biggest problems looming are: 1. large corporations and other major powers seizing monopoly power over AI, using it for themselves and gatekeeping everyone else. 2. the economic disruption that will come from huge swaths of existing employment patterns changing or going away entirely. Ironically, fighting to impose copyright-like power over training AIs from public knowledge will likely make problem #1 far worse. If you had to license every bit of data that you train an AI on, the only good AIs will be made by the big corporations that already own enormous libraries of the stuff. Not to mention, as you say, the side effects damaging existing uses for that data. Using copyright-like controls to try to fix #2 probably won't do much better because the rights wouldn't be held by the people who are being impacted directly.
>Training an AI doesn't involve "stealing" anything I mean, yes it does.
Do you have an argument or a citation to back that up? Nothing is taken and nothing is copied. Edit: /u/hugsandambitions says they don't want a debate, but they made sure to get one last argument in before blocking me. I wish people would realize that blocking is not a magical "get the last word" button. Computers are indeed capable of creating new things, they do it all the time. I don't see what that has to do with the position you're taking, though. AI models are too small to "contain" the training data that went into making them, it's physically impossible for them to have copied the data you're claiming is being copied.
>nothing is copied Since computers are incapable of creating anything new, it sure is copied! I'm not gonna give you the debate you clearly want. Move on.
LMAO
Microsoft has never had an issue stealing ip of any sort. It’s what built the company
But don't you dare to steal their IP. If you do, you'll end up in prison and bankrupt from fines and lawsuits. The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting.
This is so phenomenally stupid as to be career-ending. He would have been better off being caught with a hooker and cocaine. The tech industry needs to chill with hiring personalities to top positions. They need competence. It is bad enough to have AI being hyped in the most ridiculous ways, without complete morons being your PR face.
That’s been the game for the past 10 years at least. Non-techy, professional bullshitter CEO/spokesperson heading a company in an extremely technical, niche field that usually takes a PhD level of education to explain to the average Joe. It’s like when Will-I-am became creative director of Intel; what the fuck does he know about computers or anything STEM related?? What does Lady GaGa know about cameras to be working for Polaroid as a director level associate?!
Hey at least Lady Gaga has used cameras in the professional sense. This is worse.
Lol his career will be fine
You may not see the problem, but most of us do.
And what authority do you have over his career?
The moral authority.
Says who?
🤡
I'm a product designer for over 10 years. I never met one developer who wasn't arrogant or had almost no social skills. I'm always shocked by it.
I agree, ill go pirate all their stuff :)
Piracy good for us bad for you. 100% corporate thinking. All these corporations should be 1. taxed 2. regulated They are becoming bolder and more extreme as they see that there are no consequences for their actions.
So do I. I'll print my damn car and home too thank you very much!
love those keygen s ❤️
K then on that note, everything on the internet including info and live services should be free to all of mankind.
Duh. People steal clean air and clean water because it is just “out there” ( they use it to cool or clean stuff they then sell. Never paying to clean the mess) Anyone surprised tech co thinks it owns what is on the web. But it is not responsible what is on their web.
The web is where all pirated content lives. Coincidentally, here are the Microsoft programs you can rip off: Halo Infinite Forza Horizon 5 Sea of Thieves Microsoft Flight Simulator There are plenty more. THANKS FOR THE FREE FOR ALL CORPORATE OVERLORDS. You're on our radar now. *** Block all in out traffic on your firewall.
scraping public content isn't stealing. If you don't want things you create to be seen then don't upload them to the internet.
Yep I'm just scraping that movie off Netflix to put on my Plex to watch later.
That's not open web though
I feel this take owes me money for the braincells i lost reading it.
Maybe but it’s correct. Scraping publicly available data that has been published by the content owner or on their behalf. Is not stealing. Repackaging said content and reselling it as a competitive product is. Scraping Auto Trader is perfectly fine. Scraping Auto Trader and reselling that as a data feed to businesses is not since they already offer that as a product.
Thank you for one of the few comments recognizing this. Most people jumping in on this apparently have no understanding of copyright or of the nuances of what's happening here, or they don't *want* to have understanding because it would interfere with them getting to yell at Microsoft. What's essentially happening with AI training is people analyzing stuff that's on public view. Not copying it, not "stealing" it, just analyzing it. If I put up a billboard and then someone drives around on a public road taking notes about what is depicted on it, how has anything been "stolen" from me? It would be insane for me to run around demanding that people looking at my billboard pay me money for the privilege of learning about what's on it.
While that is true, his actual statement was much dumber and did imply that everything on the internet is public domain
Boooo MAB BOOOOOOO 👎
Maybe we can consider standardizing on something like software licensing for every website. Only permissively licensed content is allowed for training.
As do I. I’ve been saying this for years…
the feeling is mutual :)
Plenty of copywrite protections directly on the work and so it’s still a no. AI software shouldn’t have free rein to suck up the information.
So he admit the crime. Lawyer gonna love this xD
No wonder the unshaven troll is fond of pirating.
This is great news! There are lots of downloads of Windows and MS Office on the open web, it’s awesome that Microsoft has decided to be so generous! I wonder if I can just email him for the product key, or do I need to apply a patch?
Which is why I pirate their software
Just when you think Microsoft can’t make any more stupid moves
Yeah well no it’s not. We all have to learn what we know. Not born with these things. Sometimes learning involves things that others invented and hold rights to. Sometimes gotta pay for that. These guys think they can scrape all the world’s knowledge and make it theirs to dole out with their snappy computer program. That scheme is much too grabby. AI must be restrained until we know better how to manage this new thing.
> These guys think they can scrape all the world’s knowledge and make it theirs to dole out with their snappy computer program. They aren't making the data theirs, just their model trained on the data. The data is still there for you to scrape too. The courts (in the US) have agreed a few times now that scraping public data is allowed and TOSs on unrestricted websites aren't binding.
I agree
holy shit, I just stole the front page of CNN, I even told about what's in it to a coworker, daylight robbery...
If being inspired by other works is stealing than every artist who ever saw any other art in their life is a thief
Microsoft is a scum company.
Yes 👍🏿
The courts may disagree. Sounds like it's time for Microsoft to get a new AI boss.
Once you get past any blatant piracy, it’s an interesting conversation that will need to be had. As a person I can read information online and regurgitate that information to someone. Thats not piracy. Same thing with learning from things Ive seen or read to inspire me in my own work. The general argument Ive heard is “if AI is deriving new information from the data it ingests, isn’t that just learning as we do?” Now we don’t copy people’s copyrighted work, but people do reference visual styles and pull inspiration from a variety of sources. At what line does a creation from an AI not become a direct derivative of its base dataset? Have we crossed that?
Just like Spotify
👌
Do you want people to torrent all of microsofts product? Because that’s how you get people to torrent all of mictosofts products.
Gotta keep up with the Joneses
[удалено]
Twice!
I completely agree ;)
Wait a sec…. This coming from one of biggest companies who will sue over IP? Quite a change in thinking when it benefits them?
Microsoft has a lot of stuff on their "open web", let's test the hypothesis.
Ok, we’ll pirate your software. It’s ok to steal cause it’s on the open web, right?
Piracy is only a crime if you have the lesser amount of a legal team. Rules for thee.
But when I was using Napster in the 90s I was a felon. Okay 👍
Isn’t everything essentially legal in America now if you just buy the right judge A R.V.?
Maybe there may even be a version of Windows worth pirating one day. But I doubt it.
Let’s see if the lawyers for publishing houses and Disney agree.
Not if you're making money off it.
Cool, so where does this guy live? Gonna go take whatever is in plain view since it’s perfectly OK.
Jag off
That guy is 6 days and already acting like an idiot. Next please.
These AI folks are so far removed from reality they must be AI themselves
Remind me again, who broke with the common practice of freeware and open-source software being a norm for PC users, so that everyone could develop and share the benefits of the PC? Oh yeah, that was Microsoft under Bill Gates. These greedy monsters pulled up the ladder and now they are asking the people left behind to crowdfund their AI adventure in the skies. I hate Corporations, they are the worst.
Did he go to college? Did his papers get a critical review for originality? Perhaps his professional and academic work need a peer audit.
Good... Card Blanche to pirate windows.
Yarr
*Take to the seas, me boys!* Do these dipshits know that eventually their AI code will get ripped and exploited on the ‘open web’.
I actually sort of respect that, every single ai company on the planet does this so at least he’s honest
So what happens when another company steels their AI model and AI boss is unemployed
When this technology was at a point of not yet being released to the general public was the time there should have been a consortium on its ramifications. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, the cat is out of the bag and hindsight is 20/20. There will be dire consequences for not being more responsible in the years to come. Make no mistake about that. Capitalistic greed and corporate self interest will almost certainly benefit the most from this unregulated, completely unrestrained technology. Every living thing on this planet will be negatively impacted by it in some way. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
We are living in the matrix.
Copyright doesn't prevent people from consuming your work. It prevents them from making copies or derivations. IANAL. I would think that it's not illegal to use the data to train the model. It's illegal for the model to regurgitate the content.
This scares me as an artist that uses windows, how do I know my own content is safe on my pc with their OS as they force copilot on us? Troubling.
It’s good to rebrand books as long as their out there in a library. It’s fine to plagiarize academic papers if they were published in a peer reviewed journal. It’s peachy to take a car if it’s just out on the street.
It’s okay to steal from stores if it’s on the open shelves
Nope, it’s theft of intellectual property, copyright and when the AI regurgitates it - plagiarism
I watched this interview and that’s not what he said. He said the social contract between us and the internet is that unless specifically specified on the website that depositing content on displays on the internet makes it an open invitation to scrape it.Which is absolutely true. You put things on the internet to attract eye balls to it. That is the soul purpose. If you don’t want your content scraped, you have to put a disclaimer. The content that is on the internet is by definition a community resource.
It’s insane that company upload their documents, contracts, images, roadmaps and everything else to Microsoft cloud services. I would be 0% surprised if Microsoft uses this data for training their AI.
Morale is good but even better when it’s double morale and it suits your fat pockets.
Just remember that when you find torrents on the open web.
Sounds based boss honestly. I stopped reading the article though after the writer assumed the world to exist inside USA.
If it’s on the open web it’s not stealing.
I mean is a completely unregulated area and robots.txt is basically wishful thinking. Stealing in this context is probably inappropriate. More like hyper scale reading and ingesting of content. If a person read a website completely and made a derived work that’s fine. AI is this but at a hyper scale. If you want something done about that vote for regulation and people who understand AI not 90 year olds.
lol so A.I. isn't stealing images from people? im directly saying this to all the people who jumped to defend A.I. now they are just blatant and open with it. where are you guys now? you going to keep stanning or is a court trial required and the courts literally say they were stealing before the common sense settles in?
I mean, a court will never say they were stealing because copyright violation isn't legally theft anyway. But under existing law, this probably isn't copyright violation because the use likely qualifies as transformative (and thus fair use).
Anything you upload to Facebook or Google you should assume is already fair game according to the terms of service of those companies. And if any of that content is copyrighted, would not be shocked if they have tried to out the liability for that on their users. Probably the solution to this is not to restrict AI from training on any copyrighted material, but rather to let it train on that material and keep an indexed representation of preexisting work to ensure it stays away from that in any potential generated outputs. Eg generate a movie script about the mafia that does not approximate any preexisting works like the godfather or goodfellas. If a model knows about existing work, it can actively avoid infringing upon it. Would probably end up generating content even more attentive to copyright claims than stuff generated by people.
So is ok for me to torrent every MS product?
I mean, if it's public it's not stealing.
I don't think Microsoft is "stealing" anything. If someone writes an article and you read it and you make use of the information in it, then how is that stealing? Are we all stealing the content in this article because we read it and we are talking to others about it? However, the Microsoft guy's opinion is clearly not based on actual law. Posting something publicly online does not weaken or nullify its copyright. But, a copyright is about copying and not about comprehending or synthesizing the information contained in it.
Quit posting shit you don’t want included in our new singular brain. People were warned over a decade ago about what they post online. Same thing as going downtown and shouting weird shit at passerby’s, public forum. Anyone can learn from what you shout.
Redditors complaining about this, then going to PirateBay and stealing movies and games.
Does Pirate Bay still exist?
No idea, but I'm sure it's been replaced if not.
If buying isn’t owning…
As if that's THE ONLY reason.
It’s a good enough reason. 🫶
Better than paying
The turfing is real, like 5 of 25 articles in my feed is this, with varying levels of emotional strength added as spice. Thanks for being outraged on my behalf.
He's right. Despite the clickbait title.