3 ms·
You can do any of those things for your personal use, the difference is that you can't legally do things like build stairs without railings when taking on const
by CM30 4y ago
You can do any of those things for your personal use, the difference is that you can't legally do things like build stairs without railings when taking on construction jobs for clients or customers. The tools you use don't care if you're what you're doing is legal or what not, they work the same way regardless. It's just there are (rightfully) legal restrictions on what you can do with products or services you sell to the public.
The difference here is like not being able to own a hammer or car mechanics tools for your own personal use, and only being able to use them under corporate guidelines/surveilance in a restricted area, which is ridiculous.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoThere are many such restrictions on tools and components which could be dangerous to people other than you. Refrigerant, for example, cannot be sold to the general public for personal use (outside of a fully sealed AC system), and licensed refrigerant users must follow specific usage procedures to ensure it doesn't vent to the atmosphere.
- filoleg 4y ago"Being dangerous to people other than you" is not why refrigerant requires a license to purchase at all. The license is required because refrigerant is categorized as an ozone-depleting substance, and the sales restriction is established by the Clean Air Act[0]. All of which is under control of Environmental Protection Agency. I guess you can argue that any pollution-restricting laws are based on the premise of "being dangerous to people other than you," but that's not quite what people have in mind when talking about things being restricted due to being dangerous. We are talking about things like "driving a non-street-legal car" or "owning this one potentially dangerous carpetry tool", not "increasing gas taxes to disincentivise pollution." The potential danger being inflicted in those cases is direct and specific. You can totally drive a non-street-legal car on your farm, even without a registration and a license plate, as long as you do it purely on your own property and not on the actual road. And that's the approach that personally makes sense to me with AI-generated images. Any restrictions on it should be imo on the distribution and the commercial/sales side (e.g., you should not legally be able sell ai-generated posters of your neighbor in an embarrassing situation without their permission or sending them to that neighbor's workplace), not on the creation/usage side (e.g., you should be legally able to generate those images of your neigjbor, with any potential restrictions and legal problems only beginning to come your way at the distribution stage). 0. https://www.epa.gov/section608/refrigerant-sales-restriction https://www.epa.gov/section608/refrigerant-sales-restriction
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoI agree with a lot of what you're saying. The marginal damage any one person can do with access to high-quality image models is very limited, and most of the ways they could inflict damage in the first place either are illegal or easily could be made illegal. The reason I use pollution as an analogy is that having it happen society-wide creates new problems that simply don't appear on an individual scale. What happens when someone builds a browser extension to let you porn-ify any image you'd like? What happens when schoolyard bullies can fabricate a compromising video as easily as they can make up a nasty rumor today? I think most people would prefer not to live in a society that works that way if they can avoid it.