• @Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -11 year ago

    Okay, the problem is there are only about three companies with either enough data or enough money to buy it. Any open source or small time AI model is completely dead in the water. Since our economy is quickly moving towards being AI driven, it would basically guarantee our economy is completely owned by a handful of companies like Getty Images.

    Any artist with less weight than GRR and Taylor Swift is still screwed, they might get a peanut or two at most.

    I’d rather get an explosion of culture, even if it mean GRR doesn’t get a last fat paycheck and Hollywood loses control of its monopoly.

    • just another dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I get it. I download movies without paying for it too. It’s super convenient, and much cheaper than doing it the right thing.

      But I don’t pretend it’s ethical. And I certainly don’t charge other people money to benefit from it.

      Either there are plenty of people who are fine with their work being used for AI purposes (especially in a open source model), or they don’t agree to it - in which case it would be unethical to do so.

      Just because something is practical, doesn’t mean it’s right.

      • @Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        There’s so much more at stake, it’s not remotely the same as pirating. AI is poised to take over any kind of job that requires only a computer and a telephone. I’d rather have robust open source options that a handful of companies exerting a subscription tax on half the economy.

        Any overt legislation will only hurt us the consumer while 99.9% of the actual artists and contributers won’t see any benefit whatsoever.

        Short of aggressively nationalizing any kind of AI endeavour, making it as free and accessible as possible is the best option imo.