Comment by miohtama
12 hours ago
I wish there would be an open fund that allows me to do opposite and the fund would countersue copyright holders for holding development back and demanding excessive mafia payments
12 hours ago
I wish there would be an open fund that allows me to do opposite and the fund would countersue copyright holders for holding development back and demanding excessive mafia payments
People getting paid for the work they do is offensive to you?
I personally find this argument really lazy. In a very reductionist reframing, independent artists who uploaded some art to the internet for fun believe that AI shouldn't be allowed to exist without them being paid, essential alleging their contribution to AI is fundamental to it's existence. I would be a lot more receptive to the fact that all humans generally contributed to the information this system consumed and we enact some democratic law that 15% of all profits flow into some public tax fund, rather than litigate every single instance of potential copywrite on the per person or organizational level.
There are obviously laws that differ in every region but at a philosophical level I believe in the ideal of fair use. An AI is a distinctly different "work" than these originals and much like a human's own output is informed by all the information they have taken in over their lifetime, so is the output of a model.
If these AIs can't exist without also gobbling up those artist's work, then yes? You can't have it both ways, either their artwork is worthless for the purposes of training an AI (in which case there should be no problem not hoovering up their art, right?) or it's worth something and they should be compensated for it.
1 reply →
Copyright is bad, but one rule for the rich and another for the poor is even worse.