An explanation for those who can't understand why your AI is unethical.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
An explanation for those who can't understand why your AI is unethical.
An explanation for those who can't understand why your AI is unethical.
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Mucho texto
The intellectual rights model as practiced now is unsustainable. I'm glad AI is making it obsolete. Copyright and patents stifles innovation.
AI will be strictly regulated under the law.
Chinese law, yes, because chinks won't give a shit about american regoolations
two more weeks
it will be interesting to see if the suits are successful
A"I" will bend to the law. Not the other way around. It's far too easy for the government to reign in the handful of companies offering your botspam service
Do you think there will be a way for governments to audit the copyright of the databases? Or that they will be willing to spend the energy
So Adobe Firefly is ok since it's trained on material that is either public domain, or owned by Adobe.
>Copyright and patents stifles innovation.
Other way around, shekelstein, they force you to invent new things instead of just taking someone else's shit. The vast majority of technological innovation comes from countries with really strong IP laws like America, while countries with weak IP laws like China barely ever invent anything and just copy other people's stuff.
two
more
weeks
Copying is currently stifling innovation (ai). So exemptions for ai training are needed
>Copyright and patents stifles innovation.
the centuries after the establishment of C&P were the most innovative in history, with an enormous proliferation of knowledge that would previously have been squirreled away in trade guilds and died with old craftsmen
a coincidence i'm sure
Patents are fine as they're only 20 years. And patents are mostly on useful stuff like drugs or new inventions, not fricking pictures or music. Copyright should be 7 years max, not death of author + like 70 years. If you can't make money with your shit in 7 years, too bad it enters the public
okay what are you gonna do about it?
Don't care, I write anime big booba and I get anime big booba
copyright isn't that simple, there are ways to use copyrighted content without consent legally
whether or not training data for an AI is considered legal or not has yet to be determined, as far as i know
>i'm talking about ethics, not laws
nobody gives a shit about your ethics, you can choose to avoid something created unethically, but you can't prevent others from creating or using it unless it's actually illegal
>tfw they want to reverse psyop uuuu into using AI
still don't care, still not ai, still not useful unless you are in the business of generating e-girl pictures
>Was this AI tool created ethically?
>Yes
So what is the problem?
It wasn't though. It used stolen assets from Z-Library and scraped from the Web which is illegal.
I don't consider that unethical.
Then you're a menace to society.
> BOT trying to not bootlick israeli masters challenge - impossible
I do, but not if they made it open sores
>baby-bones knife is unethical
You're a surgeon who can make knives from animal bones. There's a dead baby and a few rocks nearby, but no cutting tools. You need a cutting tool in the next few hours to cut some ill shit from a patient, but things can wait for a few days till you're given a better tool - but at the risk of patient getting worse or even dying. You can't ask anyone their opinions nor do you have a hope of removing the constraints of this situation.
So you have a choice to either make a baby-bones knife or risk the wellbeing of a patient. What is an ethical choice here?
I learned to draw by studying other artists, they never got a penny from me
where does that fall on your ethical chart, or is it all about the paper trail and squeezing whatever you can out of the situation
bold of you to assume I think copyright and trademarks are ethical in the first place.
how is using dead baby bones unethical?
You consent to having your content used for AI training by publishing it.
Of course the data was gathered with consent. Visual arts are specifically made to be seen and you always learn from the data you see. The kind of art you are surrounded with will influence the art you make if you are an artist. It's insignificant if you are a robot or human in this case.
That doesn't even make any sense.
tldr left can't meme
Seriously. The only part necessary was this, and even then it's only saying "I'm right because I said so"
>unethical
*immoral
Ethics = defining rules to avoid evil actions
Morals = defining evil actions themselves
Scenario: A judge is called on to adjudicate the trial of his beloved son
Ethical: The judge avoids temptation and recuses himself from the trial
Unethical, but still moral: The judge presides over the trial but is not biased in favor of his son
Unethical and immoral: The judge presides over the trial and is biased in favor of his son
>no thanks disney I don't believe in intellectual property
Ethics are for children and peasants. Rulers in mind and spirit take whatever resource enriches their life the most. And thats a good thing!
I only use the finest, home grown, most copyright infringing and unethically sourced AI.
Don't even speak to me if your AI doesn't break 20 laws in your country.
>This knife is made of ground-up dead baby bones
Cool it, fella.
Cringe meme. Stop the hyperbole, no one cares. Quit whining and get a real job
Ends justifies means if the ends is, compared to our current understanding, unimaginably good.
The end of AI is an unimaginable thing, so we cannot yet judge the process, we just need to guide to the proper end
Why does public information need consent for an AI to view it and learn from it but not for a huma to view it and learn from it?
Because OP is a gay and doesn't want to lose his "job". It's as simple as that
The moment you publish data, it's no longer yours. The supposed IP rights are a legal construct that has no basis in reality.
If there was a logical basis to state you "own" information after publication, you would be capable of exercising control over it