'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media
-
Since when do rich billionaires care about consent??
-
I mean technically you are correct, but more in the "it's not the fall that kills me, but the landing" kind of way.
My body doesn't shut down because I don't clock in, it shuts down because I don't have any food due to not clocking in.
And yes, the only reason I need to work is because how our society's are set up. But guess what? I'm living in that society ^bottomtext^ so I can't exactly get away from it. Unless I have loads of, you guessed it, money.
Why do we have to go backwards? We're the most technologically advanced that we've ever been.
Your brain has just been rotted by capitalism.
-
I'm not sure Sam Altman even knows what labor is.
Oh God I just thought that was some random "AI artist." It's so much more cringe now that you've brought my attention to who posted it.
-
So was it trained on his work without his approval?
Everything was. Is ...
-
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don't owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don't like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can't have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ya. These are the same people that continually try to take down Team Four Star for their satirization of DBZ because it made is actually better in many ways, from a country that has some of the worst satire and free use laws in the world.
Creators of copyrighted material in Japan can literally sue someone from making fun of their material.
Pardon me if I don't take their crocodile tears seriously.
-
Why do we have to go backwards? We're the most technologically advanced that we've ever been.
Your brain has just been rotted by capitalism.
Hah. you can be as "technologically advanced" as can be, if your society still lags behind significantly it doesn't matter.
It's not that my brain has been rotted by capitalism, it's that I absolutely have no faith that we will ever reach beyond tribe mentality.
-
Next you're going to tell me using someones artstyle to depict someone getting deported is not appropriate for the white house twitter
While I agree that it's not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
-
While I agree that it's not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
There'd be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
-
Scale Lemmy to the size of Reddit and we'll see if good Samaritans are still willing to host it for free.
That's not really relevant to the discussion. The number of users doesn't matter. The point is that people will still create things even if there's no money in doing it.
Jellyfin is another example of something I use every day that is completely developed for free. The is no difference whether 100 people or 100 million people use it. It exists because the people who built it want it to exist.
-
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don't owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don't like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can't have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
Who's watching marvel movies for free, legally? Who's listening to RHCP's entire discography for free, legally?
Not the people training AI, they've been caught pirating their data multiple times.
-
While I agree that it's not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
She's a human being that deserves a fair trial.
-
It must be nice to go through the world and be so sure something so utterly stupid. Who cares about reality, I have FEELINGS.
Seriously no you've completely failed to listen to literally anything that I said. Give me an example of a novel that was Self-Published that is better than anything that was commercially available.
By definition anything that's good enough to make money makes money.
Give me anything published that actually matters in your day to day life. Give me any piece of created work that if it didn't exist, you just couldn't function.
What is your judgement of what is better or not. I'm trying you that in my life the stuff I've seen the random person create on their own often surpasses the person trying to pursue a career
-
There'd be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
Lol forgot they call weed drug
-
Reminds me of how millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can't sow or fix shit if it's broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks. The quality of products have decreased too so they break quicker which gives people incentive to buy a new one instead of fixing.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn't teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn't really needed.
We are not only losing skills and tactile learning and understanding, we are also rapidly torpedoing out planet into a massive trash heap. Which is a bit of a duh, I know, but still.
millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks
Planned Obselecence means a lot of modern consumer goods are deliberately designed to be difficult to repair.
More cheap plastic used for buckles and clasps. More glue used in place of screws or latches. More electronics soddered or otherwise made irreplaceable/inaccessible to an amateur. Shoes, in particular, leap to mind. Shoe repair used to be a standard dry cleaning service. It's practically extinct today. Very few good ways to repair a modem sneaker.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
There's a time cost to repair and maintenance that's often frustrating. I don't blame folks for opting towards convenience. But I feel horrible every time I take out the trash, knowing how much plastic waste I accrue every month.
-
"The best art is the one created by people who get no recognition for it"
Do you also believe the best houses are built by people who have no training in how to build them?
"Stop paying artists and people will keep creating"
They will, they won't be able to spend the time required to become masters at it unless they're already rich enough not to have to spend time working. It's also the same thing here, let's stop paying plumbers, people who like doing plumbing will just continue doing it. Let's stop paying garbage people, someone will keep doing it because they like it... Oh wait, no they won't.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
People deserve a form of compensation for their work if we want to live in functioning societies. If we go back to living in small tribes then sure, people will just do what they must without compensation because it's required to survive, but then human population would be in the millions instead of billions and we wouldn't be here to talk about it because the technology wouldn't exist anymore.
They are compensated. But they didn't be compensated if their work is used to train AI.
-
They are compensated. But they didn't be compensated if their work is used to train AI.
And that's the problem right there
-
That's not really relevant to the discussion. The number of users doesn't matter. The point is that people will still create things even if there's no money in doing it.
Jellyfin is another example of something I use every day that is completely developed for free. The is no difference whether 100 people or 100 million people use it. It exists because the people who built it want it to exist.
It is relevant, free development/services is nice and all, but when you're spending all your time doing it at some point you still need to eat and that requires money so what do you do? You either give up on the free stuff or reduce the amount of time you spend doing it so you can find a job meaning you lose practice and aren't at good at it.
I'm sorry to tell you but the people who are the best at what they do don't do it for free, the reason they're the best is that they can afford to do it full time because they make a living off it.
-
While I agree that it's not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
She is still a human beeing that deserves not to be made fun of like this.
-
There'd be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
Yeah lemme go to my local fentanyl shop. Because she trafficked fentanyl.
