• Zarxrax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    954·
    6 months ago

    I mean, they would have started appearing in there from the first moment that someone created one and hosted it somewhere, no? So it’s already been a thing for a couple years now, I believe.

        • dacreator@lemmy.worldEnglish
          93·
          6 months ago

          I’m wondering if we give AI consciousness is it more likely to identify humans as a threat to the Earth and try to eliminate us or would it empathize with it’s creators? Seems risky…

          • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            92·
            6 months ago

            Humans are not a threat to the Earth. Do you mean that humans are a threat to the environment? That would mean that we’re a threat to ourselves. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy us to save us from ourselves.

          • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            6 months ago

            This line of thinking assumes it would prioritize Earth exclusively over humans, which is only likely if the AI is created with that specific intent.

      • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
        7·
        6 months ago

        Rather hypocritical of you to do the exact same thing you’re accusing others of: hating on a strawman.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          1217·
          6 months ago

          Zero art has been stolen.

          You cannot steal a jpg.

          And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            113·
            6 months ago

            And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

            Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              82·
              6 months ago

              You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

              The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

              The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

              • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                4·
                6 months ago

                You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

                Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

                he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

                I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

                • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                  42·
                  6 months ago

                  The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.

                  • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                    32·
                    6 months ago

                    Of course you believe corporations are people.

          • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
            85·
            6 months ago

            It’s really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just “copyright bad.”

            It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.

            • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
              101·
              6 months ago

              People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that

              • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                3·
                6 months ago

                But isn’t it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it’s harming?

            • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              6·
              6 months ago

              Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while “intellectual property” is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.

              It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

                • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                  51·
                  6 months ago

                  Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?

                  • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                    32·
                    6 months ago

                    You’re fighting for them because you don’t want them to have barriers in their corporate growth. Okay.

                    IP laws are a last resort in encouraging people to be creative. Remind me, which of us hate creativity?

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        717·
        6 months ago

        Nothing like the thrill of being part of an angry mob! All the dopamine of righteous fury, none of the responsibility.