They frame it as though it’s for user content, more likely it’s to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    This will be an unpopular opinion here.

    I’m not against AI but the rules have to be in laws and regulations. First, AI can’t use copyrighted material without paying for it. It can’t either use material without asking individually.

    The second point is that AI can’t created copyrighted material. Whatever an AI created, it’s free of copyright and everyone can use it.

    Third, an AI can’t be a blackbox. It has to be comprehensive how it works and what the AI is doing. A solution would be to have source available code.

    Fourth, AI can’t violate laws, create and push misinformation, and material used for misinforming.

    And, of course, anything created using AI has to be indentified as such.

    The money is in what the AI can do, the quality of the result, and the quality of the code. All the other things isn’t valuable.

    • mint_tamas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Your third point is an active research topic, we can’t explain exactly what generative (and other) models do beyond their generic operation.

    • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Most of those laws are unenforcable and some are even undetectable.

      Your ideology is getting in the way of objective fact.

        • nintendiator@feddit.cl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Are you kidding? #3 is the second most possible one of that set, it’s just a matter of setting up Reproducible / Deterministic Builds.

          If you can’t replicate a result with control of the software version + the arts input + the randomness seed, then “something else is going on”.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I imagine that if AI devs didn’t sneak around copying people’s works in bulk but instead asked for permission or paid for a license, artists wouldn’t hate it like they do now.

      • MalachaiConstant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        My gut feeling says that’s not entirely true. Generative AI has so many qualities that make could it offensive to so many people, I think we were going to see a pushback from artists regardless. The devs’ shitty training practices just happened to give the artists a particularly strong case for grievances.