5 ms·
Came here expecting to see the usual nonsense "b-but computers are exactly like people and deserve the same rights!" comment, was not disappointed.
by bakugo 3y ago
Came here expecting to see the usual nonsense "b-but computers are exactly like people and deserve the same rights!" comment, was not disappointed.
- throwaway5959 3y agoWhere else would you source large amounts of text but from human authors?
- notamy 3y agoAsking those human authors for their consent. "It doesn't scale!" or similar reasons don't override someone not consenting.
- throwaway5959 3y agoThat’s not what I was asking.
- chii 3y ago> Asking those human authors for their consent. they consented by virtue of publishing the work. If a human eye can read it, then consent has been given.
- bakugo 3y agoNo, I'm pretty sure that publishing a work does not imply that you also consent to other people taking it and selling it as their own.
- chii 3y ago> selling it as their own. and there you've just put your own words into my post. Nowhere did the idea of selling comes into this (nor distribution of any kind). If you publish, you implicitly allow people to purchase and read your book. The information and ideas learnt off that book is not subject to copyright.
- mslt 3y agoIf you think open AI purchased all of this content I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn
- troupe 3y agoThey are consenting to letting people understand the ideas in their work and using those ideas combined with other ideas to produce different ideas.
- rideontime 3y agoMaybe you don't.
- gaganyaan 3y ago[flagged]
- DangitBobby 3y agoNew version of Godwin's law: any use of the word Luddite to "win" an argument about AI means the argument is over and you automatically lost.
- drabiega 3y agoI've seen several varieties of this idea several times, and it always seems pretty straw-mannish to me. No one is asserting that computers themselves should have rights. But their users certainly do. If it is legal for me, a human person, to do something inside my own brain, why would it not also be legal for me to do a rough approximation of the same thing inside my computer?
- chii 3y agoThe luddite argument is understandable for sure, but it is not in the advantage of progress to stall the development of ai with pseudo copyright concerns that are really just disguising the idea that such progress will displace existing people who currently derive benefit from the status quo.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoBoo hoo, you aren’t a victim when a computer scans your drawings. You don’t have the right to an image, and you don’t get to support intellectual “property” laws only when they benefit you.