Eccitaze

My first ever car was a 95 civic 2-door. Beat it to hell, fucked up a wheel so that there was a 1/4" of clearance between tire and wheel well, the exhaust fell off, the computer was starting to act up, and I still kick myself for letting my friend talk me into selling it for a 2003 ford escape. That got sold for a song after I fucked up the engine head trying to fix the second popped spark plug it had...

Ah, yes, you don't have an actual rebuttal so everything is just "propaganda" and "cyberpunk dystopia" as if snake oil salesmen hawking freaking AI-powered vibrators and vagueposting about the benefits of AI while downplaying or ignoring its very real, very measurable harms, while an entire cottage industry of individuals making a living on their creative endeavors being forced into wage slave office jobs isn't even more of a dystopia.

Try actually talking to an artist sometime bud, I don't know of a single one that is actually okay with AI, and if you weren't either blind or an "ideas guy" salivating at the thought of having a personal slave to make (shitty, barely functional, vapid) shit without paying someone with the actual necessary skills, you'd agree too.

ideally? It means that AI companies have to throw away their entire training model, pay for a license that they may not be able to afford, and go out of business as a result, at which point everyone snaps out of the cult of AI and realizes it's as overhyped as block chain and pretends it never happened. Pardon me while I find a flea to play the world's tiniest violin. More realistically, open models will be restricted to FOSS works and the public domain, while commercial models pay for licenses from copyright holders.

Like, what, you think I haven't thought through this exact issue before and reached the exact conclusion your leading questions are so transparently pushing that open models will be restricted to public works only while commercial models can obtain a license? Yeah, duh. And you know what? I. Don't. Care. Commercial models can be (somewhat) more easily regulated, and even in the absolute worst case, at least creators will have a mechanism to opt out of the artist crushing machine.

Yeah, no, stop with the goddamn tone policing. I have zero interest in vagueposting and high-horse riding.

As for what I want, I want generative AI banned entirely, or at minimum restricted to training on works that are either in the public domain, or that the person creating the training model received explicit, opt-in consent to use. This is the supposed gold standard everyone demands when it comes to the widescale collection and processing of personal data that they generate just through their normal, everyday activities, why should it be different for the widescale collection and processing of the stuff we actually put our effort into creating?

Huh? How does that follow at all? Judging that the specific use of training LLMs--which absolutely flunks the "amount and substantiality of the portion taken" (since it's taking the whole damn work) and "the effect on the market" (fucking DUH) tests--isn't fair use in no way impacts parody or R34. It's the same kind of logic the GOP uses when they say "if the IRS cracks down on billionaires evading taxes then Blue Collar Joe is going to get audited!"

Fuck outta here with that insane clown logic.

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

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?"

Hell, that article is also all about Google Books, which is an entirely different beast from generative AI. One of the key points from the circuit judge was that Google Books' use of copyrighted material "...[maintains] respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders." The appeals court, in upholding the ruling that Google Books' use of copyrighted content is fair use, ruled "the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals."

If you think that gen AI doesn't provide a significant market substitute for the artwork created by the artists and authors used to train these models, or that it doesn't adversely impact their rights, then you're utterly delusional.

The 14th Amendment's 3rd clause is self executing, so arguably he's just disqualified himself from office.

Holy crap, what a garbage ragebait article

Saving you a click: there's no new info here, it's just the same hullabaloo over the guy who made the accusations rescaling the models so they're the same size, and the author treating it as proof they faked it all

Which, I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether it's faked (especially since it's been pointed out that models made using different programs and for different platforms can import in drastically different sizes) but it feels kind of disingenuous to say that it's faked just because of that, y'know? It's like if an artist takes a 1440p resolution image, traces over it, and posts the traced image in 720p resolution. I wouldn't consider blowing up the traced 720p to 1440p as "faking" it or altering the traced image.

The guy apparently rescaled the models to make them similar in size, which, idk if I'd call that altering

I still think it's kind of a BS claim though

Yeah, because they're lazy, and/or don't have the ability to wage a sustained campaign. That's the vast majority of voters on both sides--myself included, sadly, though in my case it's largely because I'm afraid that a furry getting involved in a campaign would do more harm than good. Did you think every (or even a majority) of single-issue pro-birth voters were on the picket lines? Hell no. Most voters cast a vote, maybe in the primary (but usually just the general election, and only in the presidential elections) and that's pretty much it.

And for the record, I absolutely don't hate leftists, I agree with the vast majority of leftist positions, and I think protesting and advocating like this is a critical part of creating change. I just feel like it's just as important to practice harm reduction and push from the inside, too.