"We already trained and built our models on all your data without compensating you whatsoever, that's all history, but, moving forward, we'll be interested in paying a pittance for 'high quality' data."
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
39 points (95.3% liked)
Business
407 readers
161 users here now
A place to share business news and insights.
Rules
- Follow lemmy.world rules
- Only post content related to business
- Do not use this community to promote your business
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well of course he would say that. He devalued their work in the first place and wants to buy what’s left.
"I'm gonna make money off of it, and fight furiously to do so. But it's not that much. I promise."
So he's determining the price of peoples goods for them.
That's like walking into a shop taking what you want and throwing a few coins, if any, at the till whilst shouting, "I think you over estimate the value of these goods"
Man whose product is 100% reliant on creators says creators put too much value on work stolen for his project.
"The grapes I stole to make this wine are waaay too sour anyway!"
Meta's AI can't be valuable and the training data to teach it not valuable at the same time.
Fuck off, Mark.
He's not entirely wrong. For example, the guy who created Facebook frequently overestimates his value.
These companies are ready to pay a fortune to acquire a publisher in order to train their AI on the work they own, but somehow "it's not worth much"? 🤔
If you're not willing to pay the asking rate, you don't steal it doesn't seem like a news worthy story.
Objectively he isn't wrong. He will make a deal with valuable partner (knowledge bases) but doesn't need all the live information (news pages). Because AI can search the web and summarize. It doesn't have that exact data for AI learning then, but will still provide a sufficient reply to the user. At least that's my takeaway here.