3 ms·
this is the same argument against the printing press, photography, home printers, youtube, etc it is a bad argument. more accessible tools consistently lead to
by spongebobstoes 4mo ago
this is the same argument against the printing press, photography, home printers, youtube, etc
it is a bad argument. more accessible tools consistently lead to more creation in a positive way
- Timon3 4mo agoThere is a fundamental difference between those technologies and generative AI. I ask again: what stops companies from creating literally dozens, hundreds or thousands of copies of any creative work you publish? Why shouldn't they create AI artists that copy small artists in a "legally distinct" manner, and at a volume that drowns them out? As these models get better and better, the only limiting factor is the available compute. Meanwhile data centers are being built like there's no tomorrow.
- spongebobstoes 4mo agocopyright law stops illegal copying you are worrying about a hypothetical without precedent. all past evidence is that new creative tools are good
- Timon3 4mo agoAccording to current laws, using LLMs to plagiarize existing works is not illegal. There is no precedent because the technology hasn't existed before. There's tons upon tons of precedent for companies plagiarizing the works of small artists, and the justice system sides with large companies far more often than small artists. But none of the technologies you've listed allowed companies to automatically plagiarize the works of small artists, whereas LLMs do allow this.