1106
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster ~~robot~~ android that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.

Edit: "robot" means "slave"

[-] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 46 points 17 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.

[-] SaraTonin@lemm.ee 7 points 12 hours 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.

[-] __UnicornPower__@lemmy.ca 38 points 17 hours ago

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

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 13 hours ago

I love your name

[-] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 34 points 17 hours ago

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

[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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 enhances 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] shaquilleoatmeal@lemm.ee 44 points 18 hours ago

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

[-] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 26 points 18 hours ago

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

[-] techclothes@lemmy.world 4 points 13 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)
[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

I find it odd that Lemmy users are so adverse to tech.

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn't apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.

In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.

[-] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago

The world doesn't allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren't adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] myliltoehurts@lemm.ee 3 points 11 hours ago

The issue isn't with AI, it's with how companies position it. When they claim it'll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.

It also doesn't help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.

If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn't be so cold. But then there wouldn't be hype and AI wouldn't be actively shoved into everything.

[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

I disagree with your take. I've found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it's development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.

I don't think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don't think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don't think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.

It's fairly obvious what's happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don't understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn't flourish. Rinse and repeat.

[-] miridius@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Yeah it's crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It's basically a cult

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

lol, this is a human trait, not a Reddit/Twitter/Lemmy "thing".

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago

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 6 points 12 hours ago

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 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

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

[-] angrystego@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

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 1 points 11 hours 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 :)

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Are you sure you have a right to be making this argument? Lots of corporations and individuals have already argued in favor of longer copyright duration.

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

cute :)

And yes. Yes I do. I often independently come to conclusions other logical people may also come to. I wouldn't know whether they have tho because I forge my own path.

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Just looking for a bit of intellectual rigor is all :)

You’re familiar with the realm of fan fiction, I assume? What’s your stance on their right to write?

[-] allo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Nice question.

I believe if they do anything beyond creating something privately, they should respect the wishes of the creator of the realm.

Main thing I am thinking about is characters. In my own story world I am ok with others making thoughtful stories that don't mess with my characters and some world aspects. I basically dont want to make my own unique character i am attached to just for someone else to take over that character and change who they are without my consent. The worst example I've come across is in My Little Pony I once had an ai pony keep saying how princess luna was tragically dead; which was horrifying to me and I know was not in the bright happy my little pony series. I researched a bit and found it was from a fanfic that had gained prominence and was influencing the ai. My Little Pony is not a tragic nor depressing show and that totally clashed with it. When I share a story I like of characters I like, I don't want a depressed person to, thru fanfic, make history remember that character as like a drug addict or something horrific that I never said and essentially overwrite my own creation how they want and I don't.

So for fanfic I think authors should be open to agreeing with the fics of fans and fics can achieve canonicalness or at least recognition that way, but with a hard line preventing nonaccepted fanfics from actual publicity including inclusion in ai training data. Fanfics should be nowhere they are competing with the creation of the author or misleading fans in to thinking they are cannon. Yes i have no idea how to spell canon and not looking it up lol. Ultimately it should be up to the creator of the realm what they would like fans to do with it and fans should respect that.

just my opinion and perspective. what do you think?

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Interesting. I hope you don’t mind me distilling that into a few bullet points.

  • you don’t like anyone opening your creation up to interpretation.

If Da Vinci felt that the Mona Lisa was a happy painting, would he have a right to stop others from finding her fascinating because her expression is somewhat ambiguous?

If that’s a bit too Minority Report, what about writing about her being sad, like a lot of journalists and critics have?

What about when they earn income by writing about it?

  • You don’t think derivative works should compete with the original

Fifty Shades of Grey was born on Twilight fan fiction forums. Erika Mitchell/E.L. James originally used the names Edward and Bella before editing and publishing work was done. There’s a lot of reader overlap—should she be allowed to earn money on this work without Stephanie Meyers’s consent?

This also offers a second example of reinterpreting characters. What right does she have to change Edward from a protective to an openly exploitative individual? Is it okay because she changed the names?

A quote:

I am ok with others making thoughtful stories that don't mess with my characters and some world aspects

If you believe you should have rights in perpetuity to this work and protection from ideas that damage your work’s image, what happens when someone purchases those rights from you, like how musical artists sell the rights to their musical catalogs?

Do those rights still last in perpetuity?

May the individual of corporation who purchased those rights interpret and rule out damaging ideas as they see fit? May they rule out things previously seen as acceptable use by the creator?

If you don’t approve of sales of rights, what about inheritance by estate? What about their rights to further interpretation?

Another quote:

I often independently come to conclusions other logical people may also come to. I wouldn't know whether they have tho because I forge my own path.

If you independently dream up a scientist who creates a humanoid being out of various body parts, brings it to life, and is then horrified by its appearance and the responsibilities he has toward it, doesn’t Mary Shelley still have the rights to the idea? Can’t she shoot down your right to publish, or your right to recognition? What would be your method of proving it was an independent idea?

Does it matter? Should you receive praise for an idea you had that someone else has previously had (200+ years ago!)?

Along the same vein, my use of a smiley face last comment was clearly derivative and meant to imitate you in this moment, but I’m much older than you, and I wrote that way far earlier than you ever did, so can you still claim it was an imitation of your writing style?

Are you familiar with the Library of Babel as a story? As a concept? An author was inspired by Borges and made a website in 2015 that generates random combinations of letters and punctuation on command. You can “search” through the library and it will find places where the algorithm generates, at random and without intention, exactly what you wrote. People can bookmark their best finds. You can find the first page of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone here.

Now, if JK Rowling said she no longer wished for her works to be published, may we use this website to generate her works anew?

And in that vein, what rights would she have to withhold the material? I’m sure she does not like me because I’m not a TERF. But I enjoyed reading the books anyway. She has created a cultural keepsake. What right do we have to continue to enjoy her works despite her? For our children to imagine new adventures?

  • You actually do write fanfiction, and use AI to generate content in the style of the original work

That’s just amusing. No notes.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 13 points 17 hours ago

Okay.

It was fun while it lasted.

For someone.

I presume.

[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

Sorry to say, but he's right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

And as the rest of the conversation points out, if it's so important that for profit corporations can ignore copyright law, there is no justifying reason for the same laws to apply to any other content creators or consumers. Corporations are the reason copyright law is so draconic and stiffles innovation on established ideas, so to unironically say it makes their business model unsustainable is just rich.

[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.

The future comes whether you want it to or not.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

They don't want to change the law, they just want an exemption for themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.

[-] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I think the exemption would be necessary to keep up with other nations who aren't and will never be beholden to such laws.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

Oh no anyway.jpg

[-] Hawanja@lemmy.world 37 points 22 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] psyspoop@lemm.ee 146 points 1 day ago

But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] SaladKing@lemm.ee 10 points 18 hours ago

This is exactly what social media companies have been doing for a while (it’s free, yes) they use your data to train their algorithms to squeeze more money out of people. They get a tangible and monetary benefit from our collective data. These AI companies want to train their AI on our hard work and then get monetary benefit off of it. How is this not seen as theft or even if they are not doing it just yet…how is it not seen as an attempt at theft?

How come people (not the tech savvy) are unable to see how they are being exploited? These companies are not currently working towards any UBI bills or policies in governments that I am aware of. Since they want to take our work, and use it to get rich and their investors rich why do they think they are justified in using people’s work? It just seems so slime-y.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago

The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago

fucking thank goodness

[-] magnus919@lemmy.brandyapple.com 6 points 17 hours ago

I'll take him seriously if & when OpenAI lives up to its name.

[-] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 102 points 1 day ago

"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."

I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.

Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] daggermoon@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago

Why does Sam have such a punchable face?

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1106 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4181 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