Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
543 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
70493 readers
2290 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My permission costs $2.50 for every time AI reads my text or uses it in the background. Thank you! Come again!
There's a thread of thought that pops up in pro-AI posters from time to time: technology can't go backwards. The implication being that the current state of AI can only improve, and is here to stay.
This is wrong. Companies are spending multitudes of piles of cash to make AI work, and they could easily take their ball and go home. Extending copyright over the training data would likely trigger that, by the industry's own admission.
No, self-hosted models are not going to change this. A bunch of people running around with their own little agents aren't going to sustain a mass market phenomenon. You're not going to have integration in Windows or VisualStudio or the top of Google search results. You're not going to have people posting many pics on Facebook of Godzilla doing silly things.
The tech can go backwards, and we're likely to see it.
So?
Also Clegg
asking women for permission would ruin my sexlife.
probably.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man on Wall Street; it belongs to the shareholders.
AI is not just limited to these overhyped plagiarism machines. Will consent laws kill vision systems? Will they kill classifiers? Will they kill gradient descent? No, they won't.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.
I would shoot hitler twice, then bin laden, then beat meta to death with the gun because it would hurt more.
What if you were in a room with Meta, Hitler and Nick Clegg?
load more comments
(4 replies)
He admit it!
I’m not a fan of intellectual property law. I’m down to abandon it, once we establish an artist stipend to pay a regular salary for artists to live a life of dignity.
Maybe introduce a tax on AI to pay for it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yay, kill it please.
Well the AI companies and investors should have understood that building an industry off of doing something questionable was risky and risks don't always work out.
Ah, if it isn’t my old friend Mr. Nick Clegg, with a dick for a face and an ass for a head!
I doubt it. With that $500 billion dollar grant, you can hire people to make art to train on. That's a LOT of money.
Fine then, kill it.
Ha... He was the Lib Dem poster boy for a good decade. And they're something akin to pro-business libertarians. I wonder what Lib Dem Dep PM Clegg would have said to this!
He was the poster boy because he managed to rise to the rank of completely irrelevant, the highest level of office any lib dem has ever achieved.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It’s implausible that I would pay for Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+, etc.
When I can just build a server and buy a VPN connection.
load more comments
(3 replies)
[tardigrade_violin.jpg]
file under: “unsurprising capitalist takes”
Come on Disney! Use your god tier copyright lawyers and stop this AI shit for good.
Well let's hope it will.