3 ms·

The first amendment is going to slap the taste out of their mouths if they try it. If you want to steal my data for your personal use, I am under no obligation

The first amendment is going to slap the taste out of their mouths if they try it. If you want to steal my data for your personal use, I am under no obligation to play nice with you.

orbital-decay 3y ago
It's illegal to booby-trap your house with the malicious intent to kill trespassers. With enough lawyers/lobbying, the same argument could work to criminalize the intent to break the product, even if it violates your license (separate offence).
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  Here in the real world, booby-trapping a house is entirely different than ensuring that your data set is fucked up when you're so lazy that you will just steal from everybody. You will never get courts to conflate the two issues because they are fundamentally different. I have a constitutional right to my speech. You do not.
  - orbital-decay 3y ago
    Calm down please, you seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I don't justify training without consent, I explain how the argument of the grandparent can be applied in reality. Yes, with enough legal backing they can sue you for the damages if they can prove the intent to poison their model. This intent doesn't have anything with freedom of your speech or the copyright. They might violate the license for your artwork and you can try suing them, but you are also not within your right to damage the rest of their work (which this thing attempts to do). Also the word "theft" can't be legally used in court in copyright infringement cases.
    - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
      You just conflated homemade booby traps with stealing data, my guy. I am under zero obligation to ensure that my works are compatible with your models. They have the obligation to ask. I don't have the obligation to seek them out to give consent. But I'll humor you. Let's assume that they sue me. Know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to sue them for the value of their entire corporation for stealing my work.
survirtual 3y ago
I don't understand what you're saying here. Why are you upset about creating new tools for current and future humans to be more capable at unleashing their creative visions? All progress comes at labor from the past. If you didn't utilize past labor, you would not be talking to us now on the internet. You would be banging rocks against some cave wall instead. If someone is inspired by art and they become an artist creating a similar style, is that stealing from you too? Is using a computer stealing from the engineers that created them? Is sleeping in a house stealing from the architects and builders? If someone speaks do they need to pay royalties to the creators of the English language? This technology is the beginning of creating a real life holodeck. Anything someone imagines they can creatively bring to life. How is it possible there are people greedy and self centered enough to not desire that for the future? It is hard to follow the logic of your stance. I am genuinely curious about your modality of thinking if you would care to elaborate.
- terminous 3y ago
  This whole "shut up about your intellectual property rights and your ability to make a living being a creator, you greedy self-centered idiot, because your livelihood is getting in the way of my vision of the future" is not convincing to me. Especially when your vision of the future is literally based on science fiction and may never actually come to pass. More likely gen AI will be like every technology, whose inventors and fans promise a post-scarcity world, but in reality it just either makes the rich already richer or swaps out one ruling class for another. We were promised the holodeck and the replicator, and what we got was Amazon drivers having to pee in bottles.
  - survirtual 3y ago
    Does someone in a third world country who came up with the exact same idea as you years earlier have "intellectual property rights?" Is that entire conception not just construct of privilege, safeguarding only the well off? Generative AI is already allowing people to unleash their creativity in miraculous ways, thought impossible previously. I feel your argument is unfortunately extremely dated already. I am also not seeing your connection between holodeck and replicators to Amazon drivers peeing in bottles? I wonder what coal miners have to do to make a living? There are all kinds of grotesque jobs and practices, the aim is to eliminate all of them in time with automated labor, and taking all the necessary supportive actions to make that possible / sustainable. Generative AI distributes creative control and power to everyone instead of those with money to afford it.

The first amendment is going to slap the taste out of their mouths if they try it. If you want to steal my data for your personal use, I am under no obligation to play nice with you.

orbital-decay 3y ago

It's illegal to booby-trap your house with the malicious intent to kill trespassers. With enough lawyers/lobbying, the same argument could work to criminalize the intent to break the product, even if it violates your license (separate offence).

MisterBastahrd 3y ago
Here in the real world, booby-trapping a house is entirely different than ensuring that your data set is fucked up when you're so lazy that you will just steal from everybody. You will never get courts to conflate the two issues because they are fundamentally different. I have a constitutional right to my speech. You do not.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  Calm down please, you seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I don't justify training without consent, I explain how the argument of the grandparent can be applied in reality. Yes, with enough legal backing they can sue you for the damages if they can prove the intent to poison their model. This intent doesn't have anything with freedom of your speech or the copyright. They might violate the license for your artwork and you can try suing them, but you are also not within your right to damage the rest of their work (which this thing attempts to do). Also the word "theft" can't be legally used in court in copyright infringement cases.
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    You just conflated homemade booby traps with stealing data, my guy. I am under zero obligation to ensure that my works are compatible with your models. They have the obligation to ask. I don't have the obligation to seek them out to give consent. But I'll humor you. Let's assume that they sue me. Know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to sue them for the value of their entire corporation for stealing my work.

survirtual 3y ago

I don't understand what you're saying here. Why are you upset about creating new tools for current and future humans to be more capable at unleashing their creative visions? All progress comes at labor from the past. If you didn't utilize past labor, you would not be talking to us now on the internet. You would be banging rocks against some cave wall instead. If someone is inspired by art and they become an artist creating a similar style, is that stealing from you too? Is using a computer stealing from the engineers that created them? Is sleeping in a house stealing from the architects and builders? If someone speaks do they need to pay royalties to the creators of the English language? This technology is the beginning of creating a real life holodeck. Anything someone imagines they can creatively bring to life. How is it possible there are people greedy and self centered enough to not desire that for the future? It is hard to follow the logic of your stance. I am genuinely curious about your modality of thinking if you would care to elaborate.

terminous 3y ago
This whole "shut up about your intellectual property rights and your ability to make a living being a creator, you greedy self-centered idiot, because your livelihood is getting in the way of my vision of the future" is not convincing to me. Especially when your vision of the future is literally based on science fiction and may never actually come to pass. More likely gen AI will be like every technology, whose inventors and fans promise a post-scarcity world, but in reality it just either makes the rich already richer or swaps out one ruling class for another. We were promised the holodeck and the replicator, and what we got was Amazon drivers having to pee in bottles.
- survirtual 3y ago
  Does someone in a third world country who came up with the exact same idea as you years earlier have "intellectual property rights?" Is that entire conception not just construct of privilege, safeguarding only the well off? Generative AI is already allowing people to unleash their creativity in miraculous ways, thought impossible previously. I feel your argument is unfortunately extremely dated already. I am also not seeing your connection between holodeck and replicators to Amazon drivers peeing in bottles? I wonder what coal miners have to do to make a living? There are all kinds of grotesque jobs and practices, the aim is to eliminate all of them in time with automated labor, and taking all the necessary supportive actions to make that possible / sustainable. Generative AI distributes creative control and power to everyone instead of those with money to afford it.