AI like this is very quickly becoming the One Ring in my mind. Like there’s a bunch of people who have convinced themselves that they can use this plagiarism box in a good way, that the outcome will somehow justify the means. But the reality is that this machine was created by evil for evil reasons and as it stands right now you can’t use Claude or ChatGPT or any of that shit and not participate in the plagiarism, in the outright theft of all of the art and creativity of humanity, and the destruction of our environment.
I wish that more people would understand that the jump from the novelty of Watson beating Ken Jennings on Jeopardy to here wasn’t technological innovation. It was purely capitalism.
It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they’ve been created.
I’m pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I’m definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn’t going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.
People are not “suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property”. Instead they wonder why some companies can violate those rules on an unprecedented scale whiteout consequences.
the reason they can “violate” the rules is that violation is defined loosely enough that feeding millions of legally aquired contents to the AI is probably as legal as making a collage.
I think it’s more about the unequal application if those laws. People have had their lives ruined for sharing an mp3. These companies infringe on literally everything and they get rich.
I bet the next step is that the folks vibe coding emulators and replacements for major software suites are going to get serious fines, while artists are going to continue to get ripped off in the name of “innovation”.
This is very much the problem I have. We have officially reached the point where the average artist on Deviant Art has less intellectual property rights than the average even LLC let alone megacorp like Disney.
So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
Exactly. What happened to “restriction of what a user can do with software or its source code is an infringement upon the users’ rights”? I’m not saying that AI companies are acting in the spirit of FOSS, they’re not, their models aren’t even open-weight (for the most part), but the issue is not the training on materials that ought to be public domain anyway. There’s plenty of ethical issues with modern technology. It’s not sustainable at all, the supply chain is full of slavery, it generates huge amounts of emissions, etc. People’s primary concern being pearl clutching about “plagiarism” shows where their priorities lie. If AI companies have plagiarised then I couldn’t care less. It’s everything else they’re doing that’s the problem.
I am not sure it was initially created for evil, I do believe that its discovery was mostly academic and in that it was, and still is, a pretty significant/interesting one. It was very quickly and very strongly made into the perfect weapon for the information age for sure, but i doubt that the original researchers wanted that, or just really thought of the implications outside of information theory. But it was indeed Google, surveillance capitalism incarnate, that initially gifted transformers to the world and kickstarted the whole thing…
Edit: I realised that I inadvertently made this comment about “AI” by way of pronouns when I’m really talking about LLMs. Google of course did not invent AI, and I more strongly disagree that AI in its actual sense was invented for or is inherently evil.
AI like this is very quickly becoming the One Ring in my mind. Like there’s a bunch of people who have convinced themselves that they can use this plagiarism box in a good way, that the outcome will somehow justify the means. But the reality is that this machine was created by evil for evil reasons and as it stands right now you can’t use Claude or ChatGPT or any of that shit and not participate in the plagiarism, in the outright theft of all of the art and creativity of humanity, and the destruction of our environment.
I wish that more people would understand that the jump from the novelty of Watson beating Ken Jennings on Jeopardy to here wasn’t technological innovation. It was purely capitalism.
It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they’ve been created.
I’m pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I’m definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn’t going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.
People are not “suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property”. Instead they wonder why some companies can violate those rules on an unprecedented scale whiteout consequences.
the reason they can “violate” the rules is that violation is defined loosely enough that feeding millions of legally aquired contents to the AI is probably as legal as making a collage.
I think it’s more about the unequal application if those laws. People have had their lives ruined for sharing an mp3. These companies infringe on literally everything and they get rich.
I bet the next step is that the folks vibe coding emulators and replacements for major software suites are going to get serious fines, while artists are going to continue to get ripped off in the name of “innovation”.
This is very much the problem I have. We have officially reached the point where the average artist on Deviant Art has less intellectual property rights than the average even LLC let alone megacorp like Disney.
So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
That would essentially be a position in favor of prosecuting Aaron Swartz
No. Aaron did not distribute any of the work, settled in a civil suit and was prosecuted later.
Copyright was not the problem there.
Either one would be better than the current situation. And let’s be real, we aren’t gonna have a say in it anway
People shouldn’t be and companies should, neither should be, both should be, the current situation, in order of decreasing preference.
Well i think the issue is if licenses become worthless then that’s also bad for the GPL
Exactly. What happened to “restriction of what a user can do with software or its source code is an infringement upon the users’ rights”? I’m not saying that AI companies are acting in the spirit of FOSS, they’re not, their models aren’t even open-weight (for the most part), but the issue is not the training on materials that ought to be public domain anyway. There’s plenty of ethical issues with modern technology. It’s not sustainable at all, the supply chain is full of slavery, it generates huge amounts of emissions, etc. People’s primary concern being pearl clutching about “plagiarism” shows where their priorities lie. If AI companies have plagiarised then I couldn’t care less. It’s everything else they’re doing that’s the problem.
I am not sure it was initially created for evil, I do believe that its discovery was mostly academic and in that it was, and still is, a pretty significant/interesting one. It was very quickly and very strongly made into the perfect weapon for the information age for sure, but i doubt that the original researchers wanted that, or just really thought of the implications outside of information theory. But it was indeed Google, surveillance capitalism incarnate, that initially gifted transformers to the world and kickstarted the whole thing…
Edit: I realised that I inadvertently made this comment about “AI” by way of pronouns when I’m really talking about LLMs. Google of course did not invent AI, and I more strongly disagree that AI in its actual sense was invented for or is inherently evil.