this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
619 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
2861 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 another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120

Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Zero art has been stolen.

You cannot steal a jpg.

And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It's an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

I mean, it really isn't. It's the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It's how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It's how small bands have at least some protection.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you a professional at making shit up?

I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in companies existing at all.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because the focus is on people, I don’t care if it benefits a company secondarily.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

And you have the system that judges peoples worth by the number in their bank accounts and the amount of things they own to thank for that.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“Unless you’re going to instantly change the system, I’m going to advocate for perpetuating it”

Cool! You do you bud.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Oh did they break into their house and take their only version?

Copying is not theft.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Copyright is not the same thing as intellectual property though

[–] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while "intellectual property" is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.

It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Intellectual property comes before any of those things. If I paint a picture, it's my intellectual property whether I apply for some legal definition or not.

It's not the same thing as a copyright. Anyone can have intellectual property

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

That is certainly an opinion.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The music industry wants to honour you at their next awards night for fighting piracy.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Um no, we're defending actual open AI models, I couldn't give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don't.

You're actually advocating for the big corporations, what's going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I fail to see what he or your comment has to do with Generative AI models, which is what we are talking about.

I don't think you fully understand how Generative AIs work. The input data is used in a similar, but far more rudimentary way, to learn as humans do. The model itself contains no recognizable original data, just a bunch of numbers, math and weights in an attempt to simulate the neurons and synaptic pathways that our brains form when we learn things.

Yes, a carefully crafted prompt can get it to spit out a near identical copy of something it was trained on (assuming it had been trained on enough data of the target artist to begin with), but so can humans. In those cases humans have gotten in trouble when attempting to profit off it and therefore in that case justice must be served regardless of if it was AI or human that reproduced it.

But to use something that was publicly available on the Internet for input is fair game just as any human might look at a sampling of images to nail down a certain style. Humans are just far more efficient at it with far far less needed data

[–] LWD@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not all AIs do, the more "traditional" ones that you're probably thinking of don't. The ones that are generating text, images and video, however, are based on Generative Adversarial Networks a type of Deep learning Neural Network and those do learn albeit in a rudimentary fashion compared to humans, but learning none the less.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

computers do not learn

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.