Yes, just because you disagree that your new toy is literally theft and is one of the most irresponsible inventions since leaded gasoline, that doesn’t change anything.
Sorry you’re the type of person that added lead shot to your gas tank after they banned leaded gasoline.
Sorry you’re the type of person that added lead shot to your gas tank after they banned leaded gasoline.
Well that devolved quickly. People with attitudes like yours make other people really not give a shit what your argument is. Also makes me know you can’t or won’t understand that I don’t really care what happens to AI, and that since there is no data taken it cannot be stolen. But you cant understand that I guess, and we have the same tired arguments.
At least I am some what happy that the corporate control is getting taken down by open source, that models are being jail broken or freed, and that people are realizing the what we have are only LLM’s and generative noise algo’s: not AI.
I am torn on that. If it’s a company making money off of it, despicable. If it’s an open source model used for memes? I’m fine with that. We shouldn’t act like artists follow some magical calling from god. Anything anyone creates is built on their education and the media they were exposed to. I don’t think generative models are any different.
Normalizing is a thing, on top of that there are still indie markets that can be supplanted by gan image generation. On top of that artists still have rights to their work, if they didn’t explicitly license their works for the model, it’s theft that removes the value of the original.
There’s a pretty clear difference in the two. If piracy ended in a new digital good that removes the market for the original good while eliminating the jobs of those that made the original good, then it’d be close. Even then pretty much everyone agrees not all piracy is the same; you wouldn’t pirate an indie game that hasn’t sold well unless you’re an absolute piece of subhuman shit.
well uh, idk how to break it to you but it kinda does.
Piracy doesn’t equal a 1:1 sale, that argument is true, however that argument works with both AI and piracy plus it goes both ways.
The more people who do it via the free method, the less people who /may/ have bought it via the paid method. Meaning the less profit/earnings for the affected party.
However, since it goes both ways, obtaining the item via the free method does not mean that they would have purchased the paid good if the free good wasn’t available.
Both versions the original market is still available, regardless of method used.
I highly disagree that piracy and AI are any different at least in the scenario you provided.
if anything AI would be a morally higher ground imo, as it isn’t directly taking a product, it’s making something else using other products.
Being said I believe that CC’s should be paid for the training usage, but that’s a whole different argument.
I really enjoyed the “Hobbit: Extended Edition” project which condensed the three films of the Hobbit trilogy down into a single film, and as an unofficial fan-made project, is only available online for free.
Under that proposed gradient, I’m not sure where that would fall, given that it is a transformative work which uses the work of others to make them redundant (in this case, the original trilogy and the studios which would have otherwise profited from those sales).
I feel like there’s a better way to divide it, but it will be difficult to negotiate the exact line against the long-held contradictory ideas that art should both be divorced from its creator once released but also that the creator is entitled to full control and profit until the expiry of its copyright.
It’s still stolen content. Regardless of any other issues, it’s 100% stolen content.
this bullshit again…
Yes, just because you disagree that your new toy is literally theft and is one of the most irresponsible inventions since leaded gasoline, that doesn’t change anything.
Sorry you’re the type of person that added lead shot to your gas tank after they banned leaded gasoline.
Well that devolved quickly. People with attitudes like yours make other people really not give a shit what your argument is. Also makes me know you can’t or won’t understand that I don’t really care what happens to AI, and that since there is no data taken it cannot be stolen. But you cant understand that I guess, and we have the same tired arguments.
At least I am some what happy that the corporate control is getting taken down by open source, that models are being jail broken or freed, and that people are realizing the what we have are only LLM’s and generative noise algo’s: not AI.
I am torn on that. If it’s a company making money off of it, despicable. If it’s an open source model used for memes? I’m fine with that. We shouldn’t act like artists follow some magical calling from god. Anything anyone creates is built on their education and the media they were exposed to. I don’t think generative models are any different.
Normalizing is a thing, on top of that there are still indie markets that can be supplanted by gan image generation. On top of that artists still have rights to their work, if they didn’t explicitly license their works for the model, it’s theft that removes the value of the original.
So I assume you are morally opposed to piracy?
There’s a pretty clear difference in the two. If piracy ended in a new digital good that removes the market for the original good while eliminating the jobs of those that made the original good, then it’d be close. Even then pretty much everyone agrees not all piracy is the same; you wouldn’t pirate an indie game that hasn’t sold well unless you’re an absolute piece of subhuman shit.
well uh, idk how to break it to you but it kinda does.
Piracy doesn’t equal a 1:1 sale, that argument is true, however that argument works with both AI and piracy plus it goes both ways.
The more people who do it via the free method, the less people who /may/ have bought it via the paid method. Meaning the less profit/earnings for the affected party.
However, since it goes both ways, obtaining the item via the free method does not mean that they would have purchased the paid good if the free good wasn’t available.
Both versions the original market is still available, regardless of method used.
I highly disagree that piracy and AI are any different at least in the scenario you provided.
if anything AI would be a morally higher ground imo, as it isn’t directly taking a product, it’s making something else using other products.
Being said I believe that CC’s should be paid for the training usage, but that’s a whole different argument.
I really enjoyed the “Hobbit: Extended Edition” project which condensed the three films of the Hobbit trilogy down into a single film, and as an unofficial fan-made project, is only available online for free.
Under that proposed gradient, I’m not sure where that would fall, given that it is a transformative work which uses the work of others to make them redundant (in this case, the original trilogy and the studios which would have otherwise profited from those sales).
I feel like there’s a better way to divide it, but it will be difficult to negotiate the exact line against the long-held contradictory ideas that art should both be divorced from its creator once released but also that the creator is entitled to full control and profit until the expiry of its copyright.