GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s important to recognize that IP is conceptually fucky to begin with. They’re seeing what it’s claimed to be (creator ‘ownership’ of their creations) rather than what it really is (corporations using the government to enact violence on non-violent people).

    It means nothing interesting. The position they feel they’re taking is “corporation bad” which is in line, they just haven’t analyzed how IP works in the real world.

    • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So because corps abuse copyright, that means I should be fine with AI companies taking whatever I write–all the journal entries, short stories, blog posts, tweets, comments, etc.–and putting it through their model without being asked, and with no ability to opt out? My artist friends should be fine with their art galleries being used to train the AI models that are actively being used to deprive them of their livelihood without any ability to say “I don’t want the fruits of my labor to be used in this way?”

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if your fears about your friends’ livelihood are justified, but cutting down on fair use will not help at all. In fact, it would make their situation worse. Think through what would actually happen.

        When you publish something you have to accept that people will make it their own to some degree. Think parody or R34. It may be hurtful, but the alternative is so much worse.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the problem people have

        They don’t see artists and creators as worth protecting. They’d rather screw over every small creator and take away control of their works, just because “it’d be hard to train without copyrighted data”

        Plenty of creators would opt in if given the option, but I’m going to guess a large portion will not.

        I don’t want my works training what will replace me, and right now copyright is the only way we can defend what was made.

        • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s like nobody here actually knows someone who is actually creative or has bothered making anything creative themselves

          I don’t even have a financial interest in it because there’s no way my job could be automated, and I don’t have any chance of making any kind of money off my trash. I still wouldn’t let LLMs train with my work, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of people would do the same