this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
-39 points (28.1% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
4136 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (14 children)

I mostly agree with what you are saying but I do think sourcing it ethically is a pipe dream.

It's impossible to get all that data from individuals, it's way too complicated. What's already happening is the websites are selling the data and they all have it in their terms of service that they can, even Cara the supposedly pro artist website.

The individuals are not getting compensated and all regulations proposed are aimed at making this the only option. If companies have to pay for all that data while Google and Microsoft are paying premiums to have exclusive access, the open source scene dies overnight.

It really seems to me like there's a media campaign being run to poison the general populations sentiment so AI companies can turn to the government and say "see, we want regulations, the public wants regulations, it's a win win". It's regulatory capture.

I'm also pro piracy and use it myself for all my media. I still consider it theft even if moral but I understand your point about it stealing from artist. I just don't think any current regulation will help artists. Personally, I advocate for copy left licenses for anything that uses public data but I sadly have never seen any proposed law or government document mention it.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

"it's too hard to respect copyright of all the little guys so we'll just not" is an insane take. If you can't do it ethically don't do it at all.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

You are being manipulated as to think giving all the power to big data and big AI companies while squashing open source is in your best interest.

Don't do it at all isn't an option. Doing it "ethically" means websites like Getty, Deviant art, Adobe getting a fat payday while giving our whole economy to Google and Microsoft. There's potential serious job loss coming our way, and in your perfect world, all of those jobs lost would go straight into OpenAis or Googles pocket as a subscription service since any other option wouldn't be afford to build a model.

It is regulatory capture.

Please actually try to understand my points instead of knee jerk reacting all over the place because of their media campaign. OpenAI wants regulations, anthropic got caught literally sending a letter to California telling them they approve the new bills.

I'm being pragmatic, I know any regulation is just meant to build a moat and kill open source, I know the artists are never going to get paid either way. I'd rather not have 2-3 subscription services be our only option and kill open source for what amount to literally no gain for individuals.

Reddit got paid 60 mil for their data, I posted a shitload of content back in the day and still haven't gotten a dime. I'm sure companies like Getty will do the right thing though, right?

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh but you are being a mouthpiece for the people you hate.

[–] GroupNebula563@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with JustARaccoon's reply to your comment, and also this is really turning from a respectful debate into a ridiculous argument for something most everyone thinks is wrong. The artists should get their compensation. I don't care how "improbable" it is, it needs to happen.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I'll be the first to praise a bill that is actually aimed at helping artist. I'm just being realistic, everything being proposed is catered towards data brokers and the big AI players. If the choice is between artist getting screwed, and artists and society getting screwed, I will choose the former.

I understand it needs to happen but doing the opposite and playing into openAIs hand doesn't really help imo.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)