FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Hate for AI vs hate for big corporations and copyright laws. Which thing that they hate will Lemmy members defend passionately?
AI companies are not on the side of copyright reform or abolition. They just want an exception for themselves. They very much believe in trade secrets. They probably want copyright to eventually cover the current grey areas so that they can stop pretending they give a damn about open models.
It’s not unreasonable to demand AI companies to play by the same rules as everyone else.
It’s not unreasonable to demand AI companies to play by the same rules as everyone else.
But when you hate those very rules, shouldn’t you be cheering on the people that are seemingly ignoring them and are likely to try and challenge them in court/lobby to be changed/removed? Right? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that?
Oh, but not when those people are evil capitalist companies that make AI product lol.
Like I said, the AI companies are not on the same side. The AI companies in the fight for their own selfish reasons. They’re eventually just going to make the copyright situation even more byzantine. They also make the copyright reform/abolition people look bad.
It’s like if I say I’m an Anarchist and then I have to constantly say “well actually I don’t advocate for looting and vandalism nonsense, those dipshits don’t know shit about Anarchism”. Do you know how hard it is to advocate for more reasonable copyright policy reflecting modern times, when the current big crisis in the mind of artists and creators are the dipshit companies blatantly violating the law?
One issue is that they’re not blatantly violating the law though. There’s no law saying you can’t create art etc of copyrighted material. It’s legal basically unless you’re then selling it.
With training AI models, again there’s nothing illegal about that. Some companies and people want it to be illegal, but it currently isn’t and realistically never should be since laws exist around the use of copyrighted content (as mentioned above). Why should it matter if it’s a computer doing the “learning” compared to a person?
It’s what you do with the content that is controlled by law, not how you created it.
If we had a fair distribution of wealth I wouldn’t care about either of these really.
Most artists care about attribution/fame somewhat but if they could live comfortably they wouldn’t care about royalties much or others using their art.
Likewise for AI, automation is an amazing thing for civilization but when it is gatekeeped and used to make the rich richer it’s just exploitation of workers everywhere since they have to work as hard as they did one century ago with, arguably, less buying power.
If we had a fair distribution of wealth I wouldn’t care about either of these really.
A “fair distribution of wealth” isn’t really a thing though. What you likely consider “fair” is most likely “not fair” to high income earners, correct?
Yes and idfaf. Work as much as you want to. No one gets a second home before everyone has at least one. That’s my position.
meco03211@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Likely, whatever benefits the little guy. Most people don’t have a problem with copyright laws in a vacuum. It’s the abuse of those by large corporate entities that are the issue.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 23 hours ago
Well in this case there’ s no question - OpenAI benefit the “little guy” more.