• tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    15 days ago

    The AI used was likely trained on sets of data without the consent nor compensation of the people whose works were used.

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        I didn’t take it to mean that the AI was exclusively trained on their own images, but good on them if they are.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      I’ve never understood this argument in a vacuum. Fair use includes education. And people have been getting inspired by art they don’t own a copyright to for ever.

      There are lots of other critiques of ai that I do agree with.

      • dzsimbo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah, everything is a remix. I think it all boils down to preferences on copyright and corpos as entities.

        It’s easier for me to accept that an inventor gets a 30+ year copyright (or lifelong for that matter) in our current societal setup. I even understand how most things today are a collaboration, so we need bigger entities to hold such copyrights. And this is the point where I personally start seeing the problems.

        I feel if we keep this up, art will move towards a l’art pour l’art phase. Mass media will turn into something personally tuned and we’ll be charged a premium for something that was touched by human inspiration. Don’t know if I helped or digressed too much, but these are my worries in the vacuum.