You are master debater sir, difficult to disagree with such eloquent and well thought out argumentation.
gapbetweenus
joined 2 years ago
Rules that are not enforced don't make any sense whatsoever.
I'm open for other ideas, until then I take laws. I don't see anything wrong with people making rules for interactions.
That would be an update, not sure it would be a good thing. As an artist I want to be able to tell where my work is used and where not. Would suck to find something from me used in fascist propaganda or something.
The tool's creators are seeking to make it so that AI model developers must pay artists to train on data from them that is uncorrupted.
That's not something a technical solution will work for. We need copyright laws to be updated.
We just need AI consumers to go full centipede.
Not really, they are clearly spending money and resources to grab my attention and it's not like the work is done by people who are profiting in the end anyway. Than again - I'm rather anti consume to begin with, so maybe people like me are not a valuable market to beginn with, which is fair.
But they just get less money from me, because I remove all non organic ads. Would non organic ads be less annoying, they could sell more shit to me.
Like for real, you have all the money in the world and you know what I like and don't, so why don't tailor the ads to not annoy the fuck out of me?
You might have a point.
ChatGTP is more coherent.
I thought It was rather self-explanatory, but sure you need me to explain why rules make only sense if they are enforced?