Comment

Comment on Nvidia is sued by authors over AI use of copyrighted works

TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Because if a human does it, it’s a huge, labour-intensive task, and that difficulty serves as a very effective filter to stop the world being flooded by copied crap derived from the hard work of a person.

If we let AIs do it, we’d be able to churn out so much of it. Just a never ending torrent of machine-generated copycat garbage, constantly being spewed out, flooding the market, stamping out the actual people that wrote the content in the first place.

Funny enough, the printing press also led to changes for a similar reason - there was very little protection in place for writers before the printing press, because copying their work was such a painstaking task that few people bothered and it wasn’t much of an issue. Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.

source

Sort:hotnew top

BreakDecks@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
While I agree that AI generated content is annoying and of poor quality, those are hardly reasons to disallow the creation of AI generated content. If we want to expand IP protections to protect avainst AI plagerism, we need to draw a better line than just calling it garbage.

source
- TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I never said AI content should be banned.
  
  source
  - BreakDecks@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That was the entire context of your response. Did you read the comment you were replying to?
    
    source
    TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Can I ask you a question? Are you stupid? Because you look stupid. I never said AI should be banned. You made that up.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No it wasn’t. You should reread the comment.
    
    source
General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
That’s all wrong. It’s propaganda.

The rulers of old were brutal, theocratic tyrants. Forget all that Disney shit. Think witch burnings. Think medieval torture. Of course, they sought to control the printing press. They cracked down on blasphemy and regime criticism. Maybe they only allowed trusted individuals to operate presses. That also funneled money to cronies. Or maybe they even forbade the printing of anything that had not been approved.

Freedom of the press originally means that this is not done anymore.

The first copyright was created over a quarter millennium after the printing press came into use in Europe. It lasted 14 years.

Here’s a question: If we were to ban free, open source software, would that protect programmers? Of course not. They have the choice to make their products a gift or not. In the same sense, copyright does not protect authors. Without copyright, there would be only the public domain. People would have a choice to make a gift to the public or not to publish.

Copyright does not protect authors. It was supposed to give the public a tool to support authors. The US Constitution gives that as the only acceptable purpose of copyrights and patents. Unfortunately, current copyright derives from a different source. It was created by the tyrannical empires of Europe in the 19th century. Americans like to blame Disney, but all they did was lobby for the US to adopt it.

source
federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.

the statute of ann had nothing to do with protecting authors. it was about which london printers were allowed to print shakespeare’s work long after he was dead.

source