kernelle

joined 1 year ago
[–] kernelle@0d.gs 9 points 7 months ago

Genuinely a great day for linux

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 2 points 7 months ago

A plain advertisement on a user focused tech forum? Is this your first day on the internet?

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 26 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Let's create a society where people want to live and participate in, not fuck their toaster for the entire day.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago

At what point does human creative expression become a sentient being?

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 0 points 8 months ago

Exactly! When you pay for a service you own the copyright, like having a photoshop license. I meant in other situations where it's free or provided as research tools to engineers under a company.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The existing legal precedence

I know that's how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it's a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I'll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It's my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we'll see if that remains true.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Really? Even if your artwork isn't used in a commercial way?

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 0 points 8 months ago (16 children)

Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I'd say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 9 points 8 months ago

Great articles, first is one of the best I've read about the implications of fair use. I argue that because of the broadness of human knowledge that is interpreted through these models, everyone is entitled to have unrestricted access to them (not the servers or algorithms used, the models). I'll dub it "the library of the digital age" argument.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 58 points 8 months ago (23 children)

"Publicly available data" - I wonder if that includes Disney's catalogue? Or Nintendo's IP? I think they are veeery selective about their "Publicly available data", it also implies the only requirement for such training data is that it is publicly available, which almost every piece of media ever? How an AI model isn't public domain by default baffles me.

view more: next ›