this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
380 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

74382 readers
2965 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

It's important to recognize that IP is conceptually fucky to begin with. They're seeing what it's claimed to be (creator 'ownership' of their creations) rather than what it really is (corporations using the government to enact violence on non-violent people).

It means nothing interesting. The position they feel they're taking is "corporation bad" which is in line, they just haven't analyzed how IP works in the real world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (11 children)

So because corps abuse copyright, that means I should be fine with AI companies taking whatever I write--all the journal entries, short stories, blog posts, tweets, comments, etc.--and putting it through their model without being asked, and with no ability to opt out? My artist friends should be fine with their art galleries being used to train the AI models that are actively being used to deprive them of their livelihood without any ability to say "I don't want the fruits of my labor to be used in this way?"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the problem people have

They don’t see artists and creators as worth protecting. They’d rather screw over every small creator and take away control of their works, just because “it’d be hard to train without copyrighted data”

Plenty of creators would opt in if given the option, but I’m going to guess a large portion will not.

I don’t want my works training what will replace me, and right now copyright is the only way we can defend what was made.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

It's like nobody here actually knows someone who is actually creative or has bothered making anything creative themselves

I don't even have a financial interest in it because there's no way my job could be automated, and I don't have any chance of making any kind of money off my trash. I still wouldn't let LLMs train with my work, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of people would do the same

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)