Yes. But then do something about it. Regulate the market. Or pass laws which address this. I don't really see why we should do something like this, then, it still kind of contributes to the problem as free reign still advantages big companies.
Comment on Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books
bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoIf you aren’t allowed to freely use data for training without a license, then the fear is that only large companies will own enough works or be able to afford licenses to train models.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 day ago
Nomad_Scry@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
If they can just steal a creator’s work, how do they suppose creators will be able to afford continuing to be creators?
Right. They think we have enough original works that the machines can just make any new creations.
😠
bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yeah, I guess the debate is which is the lesser evil. I didn’t make the original comment but I think this is what they were getting at.
Nomad_Scry@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
Absolutely. The current copyright system is terrible but an AI replacement of creators is worse.
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes precisely.
I don’t see a situation where the actual content creators get paid.
We either get open source ai, or we get closed ai where the big ai companies and copyright companies make banque.
I think people are having huge knee jerk reactions and end up supporting companies like Disney, Universal Music and Google.
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The companies like record studio who already own all the copyrights aren’t going to pay creators for something they already owned.
All the data has already been signed away. People are really optimistic about an industry that has consistently fucked everyone they interact with for money.