3 ms·
> Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image? I'd say they're banking on the horse h
by lucideer 3y ago
> Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image?
I'd say they're banking on the horse having bolted by the time such a thing might happen (i.e. courts would need to force 1000s of very large powerful companies to pay millions of people - an insurmountable legal effort).
- timeon 3y agoSeems like we are experiencing another historical robbery.
- tticvs 3y agoOh no! Really? Surely you can point to what has been stolen, right?
- lucideer 3y agoLivelihoods
- tticvs 3y ago"I am no longer able to sell my product in the market since it has been commoditized to the benefit if everyone else" is not the same as "I have been robbed". This is literal Luddism.
- torginus 3y agoFrom the start OpenAI started with semantically overloading the "AI is an existential" risk argument from "AI is going to make me starve" to "AI is going to go rogue"
- lucideer 3y agoI don't really see AI as an existential risk (nor something that'll single-handedly starve people nor "go rogue" - unless one defines that as something like "having CVEs"). This is less about AI, per se, and more about corporate -vs- personal IP rights. Historically, IP law has bent to benefit large corporations while citing personal IP rights as the raison d'être (& never fulfilling on that justification). What OpenAI (& many others) are doing here is just very flagrantly demonstrating how that justification was only ever an excuse, & that restrictions imposed by the Berne Convention, et al, have never really applied to corporations at scale (outside of small case-by-case exceptional examples). The livelihoods being stolen are not being stolen by AI - rather it's a further reinforcement (scaling up) of a system that has been doing so for well over 100 years.