zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
Copyright holders make all kinds of arguments for why they should be get money for incidental exposure to their work. This is all about greed and jealousy. If someone uses AI to make infringing content, existing laws already cover that. The fact that an ML model could be used to generate infringing content, and has exposure to or "knowledge" of some copyrighted material is immaterial. People just see someone else making money and want to try and get a piece of it.

>>andy99+gf
Lets try this:

I'd like you do give away 100% of your salary, ok?

Are you greedy if you say no?

>>exabri+gg
This is a blatant non-sequitor. There are many approaches to actually having a good faith discussion on the societal/economic/moral/humanitarian effects of large-scale AI taking over entire workforces. Being coy and asking loaded questions does nothing to convince anyone of them.

>>Tadpol+Ng
The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Now, the percentage of those jobs lost because some of the content was accidentally copy written may be small but does account for some percentage of that job loss. So it isn't actually a non sequitur in my opinion.

>>coding+ik
> The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

You mean like tractors, electric motors, powered looms, machine tools, excavators, and such?

Yeah, and? In the limit, those things are why our population isn't 90% unfree agricultural laborers (serfs or slaves), 9+% soldiers to keep the serfs in line, and < 1% "nobles" and "priests", who get to consume all the goodies.

This same basic argument about "putting artists out of work" was made when photography was invented. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.