• Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    You can try to equate humans to computers all day, and you can even pass laws that says they’re the same thing. That does not make it true. A company using software to profit off data they have not licensed (whether it’s public or not does not matter! That is not how copyright law works!) is theft.

    Please try to sell DVDs of markiplier’s publicaly available YouTube content and tell people how you’re allowed to because it’s publicaly available.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I am not equating humans with computers. These businesses are not selling people’s data when doing AI training (unlike actual data brokers). You can’t say something AI generated is a clone of the original anymore than you can say parody is.

      • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I absolutely can. Parody is an art form, which is something that can exclusively only be created by human beings. AI is an art laundering service. Not an artist.

        The law should reflect that these companies need to be first granted permission to use datasets by the rights holders, and creative commons licenses need to be given an opportunity to opt out of being crawled for these datasets. Anything else is wrong. Machines are not humans. Creative common copyright law was not written with the concept of machines being “consumers”. These companies took advantage of the sudden emergence of these models and the delay of law in holding their hunger for data in check. They need to be held accountable for their theft.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          There are already anti-AI licenses out there. If you didn’t license your stuff with that in mind that’s on you. Deep learning models have been around for a lot longer than GPT 3 or anything that’s happened in the current news cycle. They have needed training data for that long too. It was predictable stuff like this would happen eventually, and if you didn’t notice in time it’s because you haven’t been paying attention.

          You don’t get to dictate what’s right and wrong. As far as I am concerned all copyright is wrong and dumb, but the law is what the law is. Obviously not everyone shares my opinion and not everyone shares yours.

          Whether an artist is involved or not it’s still a transformative use.