this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
95 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

34906 readers
317 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the training, and therefore the datasets are an important part of the work with AI. A lot of ppl are arguing that therefore, the ppl who provided the data (e.g. artists) should get a cut of the revenue or a static fee or something similar for compensation. Because looking at a picture is deemed fine in our society, but copying it and using it for something else is seen more critically.

Btw. I am totally with you regarding the need to not hinder progress, but at the end of the day, we need to think about both the future prospects and the morality.

There was something about labels being forced to pay a cut of the revenue to all bigger artists for every CD they'd sell. I can't remember what it was exactly, but something like that could be of use here as well maybe.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's be clear. The ai does not in any way "copy" the picture it is trained on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes.

And let's also pin down that this is the exact issue we need more laws on. What makes an image copyrightable? When can a copyright get violated? And more specifically: whatever the AI model encompasses, can that inhibit fully copyrighted material? Can a copyrighted image be assumed by noting down all of its features?

This is the exact corner that we are fighting over currently.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has already been decided. Inspired works are not covered by copyright.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Inspired in the traditional sense or inspired on a basis of datasets with concrete numbers? Huge difference.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Lol not at all.