this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024

836 points (97.3% liked)

memes

9662 readers

2822 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

[email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
[email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
[email protected] : Linux themed memes
[email protected] : for those who love comic stories.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

836

Seems like I wont be able to even own tbe content I create (lemm.ee)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] -14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand what the issue here is? Are people upset that companies that own the AI will churn profit from the free data available on the Internet for them to be trained on?

If so, this is a hypocritical double standard. We use the Internet for the free information ourselves. We train ourselves but if a company does it for AI all of the sudden all that free information suddenly needs to be paid for because it's an incorporated institution?

Y'all need to figure out how free you want this content to be because there's no in-between.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

... but if a company does it for AI ...

That's the line. Free for people. Not free for companies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right but that's the thing. You can't have it both ways. Either the information is free or it isn't.

If it is offered for free who queries that information should be irrelevant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe it to be relevant, and so do many of the authors of the "information."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If the authors of the information wanted to get paid they wouldn't submit their intellectual property to a website that provides said information for free.

Like I said either everyone pays or no one does. You can't have it both ways.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

... either everyone pays or no one does.

How about this. Either everyone pays, or no one does, or only some of them have to pay - depending on their use.

This all-or-nothing is a false dichotomy. Like look at how much software is free for small scale users or educational or non-profit orgs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And how exactly would this work?

Actually I'll tell you how this is going to work. Sites like Wikipedia, GitHub, stack overflow, ext will have to force every one of their users to open a personal account and conduct constant verifications to make sure they're not AI's.

From what I've seen on the internet people don't like this.

So again it can't be both, either it's all free or it's all paid for. There is no in between.

Look, I know what you want to happen here and I even agree with it on the surface. Cooperations need to pay their fair share and many of them don't. But I don't think you understand the implications of what you're asking for.

Let the AI's learn for free because in a few years it won't matter anyway.

We're on the precipice of a technological singularity and hopefully in our lifetimes the function of a monetary economy will no longer be relevant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Licenses are binding because courts recognise them. For individual players it's usually not worth pursuing, unless you're Nintendo.

But for large, wealthy, or venture backed, enterprises (notably, ones with legal departments) a class action suit is much more feasible.

This is super basic. We can do better. This isn't even like novel legal territory. We went through this with photography and Photoshopping.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Sir. I think you have the wrong number.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Large, wealthy, or venture backed. Companies that like to think of themselves as legit. As having nothing to hide

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They really need better bot blocking on lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

R D R R the old ad botinem; you sure showed me. I didn't expect defeat to taste so sweet, but here I am thoroughly pwned by a measly meatbag

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

exactly. if a human painter looks at a bunch of posted images to practice with, it's okay. If a computer does it, it's evil.

Both the human artist and the computer eventually create something someone wants to pay for, and neither paid for looking at other people's art.

it's a double standard.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The better image is of the "Me" was drinking from the company's pee stream.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Or just licking spit of their boots

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is how they get their revenge on piracy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But the solution is more piracy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

it's piracy all the way down.

load more comments