this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1009 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4859 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 37 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

If giant megacorporations can benefit by ignoring copyright, us mortals should be able to as well.

Until then, you have the public domain to train on. If you don't want AI to talk like the 1920s, you shouldn't have extended copyright and robbed society of a robust public domain.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 32 minutes ago

I'm somewhat ok with AI talking like the 1920s.

"Babe, I'm on the nut. I'm behind the eight ball. I'm one of the hatchetmen on this box job, and it's giving me the heebie-jeebies. These mugs are saying my cut is twenty large. But if we end up squirting metal, this ain't gonna be no three-spot. The tin men are gonna throw me in the big house until the big sleep."

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.

Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

I'd settle for shortening the term of copyright.

[–] SaraTonin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

Musk has an AI project. Techbros have deliberately been sucking up to Trump. I’m pretty sure AI training will be declared fair use and copyright laws will remain the same for everybody else.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works -4 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

Let's say I write a book.

If I don't want people copying it, people shouldn't be copying it. I don't care if it's been 500 years. It's my book.

This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.

Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can't protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn't want it stolen, I don't give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else's creation without consent. It isn't holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.

when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi'd; no matter how long ago it came out.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

What is really novel in art is very hard to define. Art is based on artists inspiring each other, reacting to each other, borrowing from each other, evolving other artists's ideas, actualizing and restructuring ideas. That's why history of art is so fun and interesting.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago) (1 children)

your art may be taken from others. mine is mostly based on dreams.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

Must suck being Shakespear for sure. Not even dreams are original though, they're influenced by what you see in reality and by mental structures common to all people - motives in dreams repeat across nations and ages. You can be authentic, but it's arguablx impossible to be absolutely original. Do your art for yourself and others who appreciate it, but don't gatekeep ideas.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 22 minutes ago

Steal away then! You've clearly convinced yourself it is the only way to create things.

Glad you can't see any of my things :)

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 35 points 6 hours ago

If I had to pay tuition for education (buying text books, pay for classes and stuff), then you have to pay me to train your stupid AI using my materials.

[–] __UnicornPower__@lemmy.ca 28 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

I love your name

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 25 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 57 minutes ago

Depends on if you consider teaching "cheating." Current AI is just learning material, similar to a human but at much faster rates and with a larger brain. Someone IS going to develop this tech. If you pay attention to the space at all, you'd know how rapidly it is developing and how much the competition in the space is heating up internationally. The East tends to have much more of a feeling of responsibility to the state, so if the state uses "their stuff" to train this extraordinarily powerful technology then they are going to be ok with that because it absences their state in the world. The West seems to have more of an issue with this, and if you force the West to pay billions or trillions of dollars for everything to teach this system, then it simply either won't get done or will get done at a pace that puts the West at a severe disadvantage.

In my view, knowledge belongs to everyone. But I also don't want people more closely aligned with my ideals to be hobbled in the area of building these ultimate knowledge databases and tools. It could even be a major national security threat to not let these technologies develop in the way they need to.

[–] shaquilleoatmeal@lemm.ee 39 points 7 hours ago

“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 11 points 5 hours ago

Okay.

It was fun while it lasted.

For someone.

I presume.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man

[–] techclothes@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It has some great upsides. But those upsides can be trained on specific information that they pay for instead of training AI on people's stuff who didn't consent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Oh no anyway.jpg

load more comments
view more: next ›