Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and is now exploring new vistas in social media.
If explicit permission for specifically AI training is required then AI is basically impossible, because nobody gave that permission.
I don’t think such permission should be required, though, either legally or ethically. When you put something up for public viewing you don’t get to retroactively go “but not like that” when something you didn’t expect looks at it. The permission you gave inherently involves flexibility.
So the free open-source AIs are fine? I’ve seen plenty of objections to those as well.
Getty Images is infamous for adding public domain images to their archives and then sending threatening demands for payment from anyone they subsequently spot using them. They’re a big giant corporation like any other, all they’re interested in is cash flow.
Note that I put “ethical” in quotes because ethics are a subjective matter that can’t be proven one way or another. “Scraping the web” is IMO no different from regular old reading the web, which is what it’s for. If you don’t want your images to be seen then don’t put them online in the first place.
Make note, folks who have been demanding only “ethical” AI training. You’re demanding a world in which only Getty Images and other such existing incumbent copyright-holding corporations have decent AIs.
Literally anyone else could easily generate the exact same image, and are they going to be in violation of my copyright now?
It is already the case that if an AI generates an image that happens to be effectively identical to a copyrighted one the person who generated the image can be in violation of that copyright. It doesn’t matter how the copyright originated.
In the case of your cat example, though, the solution is trivial. Use a random seed. There’s far too many potential images any given model could generate to ever copyright all of them, or even a tiny sliver of them, and if that did miraculously happen just train the model a little more and you get a whole new set of outputs. It’s unfeasible.
“Royalty free” is not the same as public domain, most “royalty free” images still need to be licensed for particular uses and come with other restrictions. The only thing royalty free means is that the copyright owner doesn’t demand a cut of each sale you make of whatever you used it in.
Seems there are more bibliophiles out there than we realize.
“Copied” or “mimicked” would be more accurate.
It’s emotionally charged semantics.
His voice wasn’t stolen, it’s still right where he left it.
But AI is industrial plagiarism.
You don’t know how generative AI works. Or what plagarism means. Or possibly both.
BTW, what if these folks are using Adobe Firefly? It was trained entirely on licensed materials.
Their previous edition of this game used public domain art, which was literally free for them. Were you avoiding that edition as well?
Their previous release used existing public domain art, were they already at the “not interested in quality and want to make $$ by cutting all corners” level when they did that?
I don’t use WhatsApp, I only have this article to go off of. You need to include more context with editorialized titles like this.
I’m not seeing anything about monetization in this article, could you be more specific?
What’s enshitty about this?
As a dev myself, I fully agree.
But that also illustrates why simply demanding that the existing devs should prioritize your personal needs over whatever it is they’re working on is kind of a non-starter. If it’s too hard for you to become a dev on the project but they’ve put in the effort to do so, they get to use that hard-won ability however they see fit.
Is there some sort of bug bounty or feature bounty program for Lemmy or kbin? That might be a way that a non-dev could get their own needs prioritized, perhaps.
Anyone can be a dev, it’s open source.
What he’s suggesting is that instances can be like AOL. Not that they have to be. Each instance can present whatever sort of interface to the fediverse that it wants, and people can pick and choose which one they like.
And then a few years later in generic form for much, much less.
I’m actually not terribly put out by the initial high cost of these things, especially when it’s something that isn’t a vital life-saving treatment that people have no choice but to try. Every new technology starts out expensive and gets cheaper as competition arises and better manufacturing techniques are developed.