It seems Linus’s position is very clear now

  • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    plagiarism

    outright theft

    It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they’ve been created.

    I’m pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I’m definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn’t going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.

    • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think it’s more about the unequal application if those laws. People have had their lives ruined for sharing an mp3. These companies infringe on literally everything and they get rich.

      I bet the next step is that the folks vibe coding emulators and replacements for major software suites are going to get serious fines, while artists are going to continue to get ripped off in the name of “innovation”.

      • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        This is very much the problem I have. We have officially reached the point where the average artist on Deviant Art has less intellectual property rights than the average even LLC let alone megacorp like Disney.

    • AAA@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      People are not “suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property”. Instead they wonder why some companies can violate those rules on an unprecedented scale whiteout consequences.

      • jumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        the reason they can “violate” the rules is that violation is defined loosely enough that feeding millions of legally aquired contents to the AI is probably as legal as making a collage.

    • communism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Exactly. What happened to “restriction of what a user can do with software or its source code is an infringement upon the users’ rights”? I’m not saying that AI companies are acting in the spirit of FOSS, they’re not, their models aren’t even open-weight (for the most part), but the issue is not the training on materials that ought to be public domain anyway. There’s plenty of ethical issues with modern technology. It’s not sustainable at all, the supply chain is full of slavery, it generates huge amounts of emissions, etc. People’s primary concern being pearl clutching about “plagiarism” shows where their priorities lie. If AI companies have plagiarised then I couldn’t care less. It’s everything else they’re doing that’s the problem.