I’m already sick of this phrase. The tech hallucinates too much, and understands security about as much as a whale understands astrophysics.

WIPO sounds like an racial slur.

I’m unqualified to try to untangle why Trump’s handlers are doing this, and I generally don’t like to spout off without evidence.

Trump’s handler is Putin, and there’s plenty of evidence.

People and small indie companies have lost entire fortunes trying to enforce or defend completely obvious copyright cases.

Stable Diffusion. Why do you think all of these models exist?

Capitalism will outlast copyright. They’ll adapt. The rich have existed for millennia and there’s no reason to think they would roll over as soon as copyright dies.

But, the more they push AI as their digital savior, the more copyright-free content they create. AI is just hastening copyright’s demise.

The biggest problem with Ai is copyright.

FTFY. Copyright is a tool of the rich. It is not for you.

Yep, I can generate a bunch of funny pictures on Stable Diffusion in a couple of minutes.

I think that in a better world, image generation could’ve been used for prototyping, fun, or enabling art from those without the time to dedicate to a craft. It could’ve been a tool like any other. LLMs could’ve had better warnings against their hallucinations, or simply have been used less for overly-serious things due to a lack of incentive for it, leaving only the harmless situations.

I think that world still exists, but it’s going to take corporations tripping over their hundreds of billions of dollars and burning it in a dumpster fire, before they realize that the technology isn’t theirs to keep and own.

Legally, the one hosting the material is the one who is punished, not the downloader. Though, if they are using torrent software, they are both downloading and hosting. Copyright law doesn’t give a shit why they’re watching it.

If I downloaded pictures on the internet by visiting a web site, I’m not going to suddenly get punished because it’s copyrighted. Otherwise, every one of us is now in trouble because of the linked article.

Everything is a remix of a copy of derivative works. They learn from other people, from other artists, from institutions that teach entire industries. Some of it had “informed consent”, some of it was “borrowed” from other ideas without anybody’s permission. We see legal battles on a monthly basis as to whether these four notes are too similar to these other four notes. Half of the movies are reboots, and some of them were actually itself another reboot a few times over.

“Good artist copy, great artist steal.”

No human has truly had an original thought in their head ever. It’s all stolen knowledge, whether we realize it’s stolen or not. In the age of the Internet, we steal now more than ever. We pass memes to each other with stolen material. Journalists copy entire quotes from other journalists, who then create other articles about some guy’s Twitter post, who actually got the idea from Reddit, and that article gets posted on Facebook. And then when it reaches Lemmy, we post the whole article because we don’t want the paywall.

We practice Fair Use on a regular basis by using and remixing images and videos into other videos, but isn’t that similar to an AI bot looking at an image, figuring out some weights from it, and throwing it away? I don’t own this picture of Brian Eno, but it’s certainly sitting in my browser cache, and Brian Eno and Getty Images didn’t grant me “informed consent” to do anything with it. Did I steal it? Is it legally or morally unethical to have it sitting on my hard drive? If I photoshop it and turn it into a dragon with a mic on a mixing board, and then pass it around, is that legally or morally unethical? Fair Use says no.

It’s folly to pretend that AI should be held to a standard that we ourselves aren’t upholding.

I don’t know of a single modern model that only used training data that was taken with informed consent from the creators of that data.

I don’t know of a single modern human that only used training data that was taken with informed consent from the creators of that data.

So, make it not owned by the same people.

Support open-source models. Most of this shit are research papers.

Essentially OpenAI, Google and the rest of the pack of thieves are lobbying to establish themselves as the rulers of a lawless world

Which is why open-source models are so critically important. When OpenAI collectively shat their pants at the announcement of DeepSeek, it exposed an obvious weakness in their plans: They can’t sell what people can do for free.

They. Are. Fucking. Terrified. Of. Open. Source.

Same thing when Google put out that internal memo a few years ago, criticizing the use of open source, when Stable Diffusion suddenly exploded on the scene.

Indeed that would be the end of the copyright law, but only for the oligarchs.

All it takes is one critical case to establish precedent.

A bunch of fucking nepo babies are having an existential crisis that the general public has more access to generating content for videos and movies? Hollywood was already exploited for a hundred years before this. It’s too late to sound the alarms.

Also, fuck copyright law.

“So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here–not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

so corporations can deploy millions of instances to churn out slop while crediting no one, thus erasing all the cultures that went into said slop.

People can create whatever they want with AI. They have access to the same tools. Viva la open source.

Also, AI art isn’t copyrightable, so whatever corporations are churning will not be protected by a court of law.

Let’s abolish all copyright then

That’s a great idea! Copyright is completely broken and only benefits large corporations with the lawyers to enforce it. It is nonsensical and the constant extensions to US copyright have diluted public domain and open-source works. In fact, the constant and rampant breaking of copyright and stretching the definitions of fair use is a side effect of the public’s lack of options in the public domain space.

Yeah, this is what I don’t get. “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” This is a quote for a reason. Everything is just a remix of something else. Just look at the shit Andy Warhol put out.

Also, you can’t copyright AI art, so I’m not sure what the point of paying money for AI art is for.

You have constitutional amendments for this exact scenario.

WTF does this actually mean? You do realize that constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds majority, right?

And what the hell amendment are you suggesting?