• UltraBlack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The thing about ownership is that unless something else is specified, everything is ARR by default.

    Adding insult to injury, they don’t care about licenses…

    You may be allowed to consume but not to sell that content

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      But they’re not selling that content. I cannot begin to tell you how often I encounter this exact line of reasoning.

      If a painter creates an original painting inspired by Rembrandt, Rembrandt’s estate doesn’t receive royalties simply because his work served as inspiration.

      LLMs and other AI models generate novel content. They don’t simply copy established works and regurgitate them verbatim. The training process allows these models to identify patterns, relationships, and structures in enormous datasets, which they then use to generate new material.

      As usual, much of the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform comes from a place of absolute ignorance regarding how these models actually work, how they function, and how they’re trained.

      • UltraBlack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I want to fundamentally differentiate between AI and Humans. A machine cannot feel emotions, a machine isn’t bound to the very natural struggles of a biological meaning. Therefore, an AI cannot create what I would call art. A machine, like AI, is very much intended to efficiently prosuce large quantities of something. The profit Motive is therefore deeply engrained in their existence – unlike an artist, who primarily expresses themselves.

        In the case of a machine, I definitely think that royalties are justified, because it cannot create new, it can only recreate.