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
I don't disagree with you at all, your point is important to communicate and debate on! But the framing of the original comment was unproductive and only served to hurt the argument.

I, personally, think that AI is a tremendous opportunity that we should be investing in and pushing forward. And my existing dislike of property right laws does feed into my views on the training data discussion; prioritizing a revolution in productivity over preservation of jobs for the sake of maintaining the status quo. But I'm not stupid enough to think there will be no consequences for being unprepared for the future.

Rather unfortunately, I'm not quite clever enough to see what being prepared would actually look like either.