Just make sure to destroy the original when scanning it
To stop the competition. It’s just business.
You wouldn’t download a car.
You wouldn’t download the entire internet.
I would if I could
My only complaint about this image is that AI hasn’t shown any ability to replace jobs. All of the AI companies are burning money on models that peaked a while ago and are still ass for any skilled labor, it’s a dead end.
I’m sorry, when has this “any ability” you speak of been a marker for any excuse to cut costs by corporations? capitalist demons like musk have yet to show “any ability” themselves; seems to be working out fine for them.
I hate musk, he deserves a special place in hell, but he was an absolute wizard at replacing human labor. His car factories ran so fast that his engineers had to account for aerodynamics while still on the production line.
that’s not a good thing
It could be if we taxed and fined him into the dirt.
I know several companies which have stopped paying for stock photos and using AI laundered images or using AI to remove watermarks without any skills in image editing softwares.
Is it replacing jobs? I don’t know the economics of this field well enough to know what cut the photographer gets, but I know that there’s less cash flowing into this sector due to genAI
You can tell when a stock photo is ai, it looks creepy and weird and people hate it. They didn’t replace workers, they downgraded their product.
We know that, but it’s a slow creep of sludge and most decision makers see the cost go down and rejoice
This. And all that “convenience” makes the world uglier and less human. Where we used to take a taxi on holiday and have a chat with the driver about his life and his family, and get a few tips on where to eat where the locals eat, we can now get robotaxied somewhere without any human interaction at all. And we get doctored made up images of destinations that don’t exist, by people that look like manga versions of themselves. We truly live in the cheapest version of the world nowadays.
I was shocked to see in a bookstore how many kids books had images made by gpt-1
See my art? It’s totally mine.
I did this almost 2 years ago for my profile, I think they’ve “fixed” it by now though.
What is stealing? I prefer to use the term “greedy bear”, who, after looking at someone’s thing, immediately decides that it is now his to the last piece!
Memes like these reinforce my opinion of the average internet user.
Most of them are too stupid to begin to comprehend how stupid they are.
And they get mad whenever you call it out.
Are people really arguing that copyright infringement is theft?
We have come full circle.
we’re focused on the double standard. it’s theft and we go to prison when the people do it. it’s innovation and good when the billionaires do it. who’s always getting stolen from is the poor, and always by the billionaires. any attempt to reverse this flow is met with prison time.
No. They’re saying that if the government is calling copyright theft by all other measures, this should be too.
It is the playing field being unlevel that is under question in both cases.
It’s only copyright theft when the poors do it.
You hit the nail on the head, dude.
If you are wealthy enough it is, if not then you are fucked.
Goes both ways doesn’t it? People defending piracy of software but hating on AI.
But when an analog artist gets his inspiration (like AI) from other artists it’s fine when an AI does it all hell breaks loose.
peak hypocrisy…
Difference is for me, if I feed a LLM your work and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement, especially if you monetise that output. Its devaluing your ability to make new and unique content if your work isn’t protected if I can copy your style with a simple prompt for say a recruitment ad for ICE and there is fuck all you can do about it.
Why fight to prop up capitalism?
Which is more capitalistic, giant corporations like Facebook stealing others work and devaluing labour and talnet further or self created content that could be quite easily self published? Its classic big guy verses little guy.
Who’s more likely to have the legal fees to pursue copyright infringement cases, the big corporations who do it all the time stringing people along until they go broke trying to fight them and than go and lobby for another 10 years copyright extension or the poor artist?
Copyright and IP exist for their benefit, not ours.
Yeah, we’re like the peasants who were robbed of all the wheat they worked so hard to grow and left to starve. Hell, what if executions for thoughtcrimes became the norm?
and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
Seems like the opposite. Keeping the same legal considerations, but replacing LLM with a person
if I feed an imitator your work and now they can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
producing a derivative work with substantial changes (like a new idea) is a classic, time-tested way to produce similar work while upholding copyright. If that’s not infringement when ordinary people do it, then how is that infringement for LLMs?
Not really at all.
Fifty shades of grey had to change its entire setting and characters to get published. I can’t just produce princess monoke two and not get sued.
I can’t even sell t shirts with either on via etsy or similar without risk. Yet I could steal studio ghibilis art style with zero talent involved using a llm to advertise my business, seemingly perfectly legal right now.
You never hear music in a show or movie that sounds like a shitty knock-off of popular music to comply with copyrights? It happens a lot.
“Princess Mononoke 2” would copy a bit more than merely style: characters, setting, theme, story, expression.
Imitating mere style (like Ghibli) for something substantially different was legal before just as it is now for human or LLM. I think people like you are throwing fits because they never realized it (or cared) until LLMs started doing what skilled people were already doing long before.
Even killing children may be legal if it is profitable, they will even be used to cook food, well, that’s just for comparison, one thing is cannibalism of the flesh, another is cannibalism of the soul in the case of art.
“Style” is not a trademarkeable asset, you buffon.
The anti-AI crowd appears to outweigh the pro-piracy crowd on Lemmy.
I’m anti-AI and pro-piracy.
I object to paywalling access to culture and knowledge, because it degrades our society, cuts people out of participating in ongoing cultural conversations, and keeps people from enjoying the fruits of human creativity based solely on their income level.
I object to AI for basically the same reasons.
it’s not complicated, yet people act like it is
I can understand why. They buy into AI vendors’ premise — that copyright is the only way to fight back.
But that’s not going to work. Because 1) they win either way, but more importantly: 2) if you zoom out, this is kinda the big tech playbook in general, right?
“Okay, define what constitutes a ‘taxi service’, so that I can compete against them while avoiding the regulations that apply to them.”
“Define ‘employment’, so I can use people’s labor without respecting their labor rights.”
“Define ‘purchase’, so I can charge money for access to something but take it away whenever I feel like it.”
So when we say “Hey, you’re being a jerk by using people’s own work to compete against them and disconnect them from their audience”, they say “Okay, define that in objective, quantifiable terms, and we’ll stop doing anything that fits that exact definition… but we’ll still continue doing basically that, obviously.”
So you’re fine with free open source models?
Not really, but I guess it depends whether you’re asking about my personal beliefs or policy positions.
My concerns about gen AI basically fall into these categories:
- Environmental impact: water usage, energy usage
- Harmful output: misinfo, disinfo, reinforced biases, scams, “chatbot psychosis”
- Signal jamming: gen AI produces so much output based on so little input, it really could cause a communication equivalent of Kessler Syndrome
- Anticompetitive practices: using the works of creators to compete against them in the same market
- Labor alienation: what Doctorow calls “chickenized reverse centaurs”
- Undermining open access: see Molly White’s essay “No, Not Like That”
FOSS addresses some of those, to some degree. But none of them completely.
Should a technology be banned just because it’s not perfect? No. (And even if you decide a technology should be banned, you have to consider the practicality of actually enforcing it. It’s not like you can “uninvent” software.)
My biggest worry is actually the signal jamming. And there’s not really much we can do about that except to just decide not to use AI.
Edit: Btw, that was a good question and whoever downvoted you is a butt.
We don’t have any state-of-the-art open source LLMs. We have open weights models. The reason for this is that for a true open source LLM you would need to open up your sources for training (which opens the possibility for people to sue you for using their content for training) and the techniques how you trained the model (which allows other developers to copy that to advance their own models)
The last true open source model was probably chatgpt 2 or something of that level.
Only one of them is done out of corporate interest. If the courts want to hold individuals accountable, they should do the same to corporations. With an effort equal to gains.
Correct. I really don’t give a rat’s ass if someone uses my work to generate some derivative or even copies it indefinitely for some purpose where it is only used privately. It’s incorporating it into a commercial for-profit product and attempting to sell it or pass it off as their own that’s not going to fly with me.
You know, a fat pig won’t ask whose food it is, she’ll just take it and eat it, and maybe you along with it lol.
You wouldn’t steal a car
But I would shit in his hat!
Err… Go to the toilet in his hat. Sorry.
Check your drive. Tee hee
But i would feed it to chatgpt for some sweet output
It’s not theft. Nothing is taken, no-one is deprived of their work, and no copies are even made
It takes people’s collective work and then requires those same people to pay to use it. It allows already mega wealthy companies to get even richer by selling people’s own creativity back to them.
I also see a lot of privacy issues - the fact that let loose on a specific data set (like Facebook) it then knows anything about anyone. Even if I don’t use Facebook myself because I hate it - if someone would congratulate my spouse with the 10th birthday of our son Chris, A.I. now knows I have a son, born on this day in 2015, his name is Chris. That fact isn’t stored in a database where it’s easily erased. It’s part of a probability vector in an artificial brain, where it can’t be removed even if I request the source data to be deleted. This is actually what worries me more, for all the good AI can do, there is a lot more evil. If the Nazis would have this in 1940, there would be no resistance movement. It would be trivial to see who would be part of it and who would be their families and friends.
You’re not pirating media, you’re reviewing it for quality before model training.
Just make sure to keep a spreadsheet with your movie reviews and a storage bucket with the files.
Use keras to set up an auto encoder that you train weekly.
What legal precedent said theft is legal if it’s used to train AI?
I think the Facebook thing where they downloaded massive torrent of books but it wasn’t piracy because “they didn’t seed”
That’s not what happened.
Why don’t you tell us what happened, then?
Here’s an article about the case in question.
“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria said. “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.”
Still quite a bullshit ruling.
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn’t prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn’t commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
It’s still bullshit.
