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
It's important to keep in mind that AI doesn't take over entire workforces because it is better, or does jobs humans can't, but because it is cheaper. I've played with several AI art and text models and none of them I would consider to be better than a human. However, they are good enough - and more importantly, legally ownable[0] capital goods - such that corporations would rather have an AI serve you to make their own scale problems go away.

The hyperbole about being forced to work for free isn't entirely wrong, because tech companies love tricking people into doing free labor for them. They also aren't arguing for AI being a copyright-free zone. They're arguing for reallocation of ownership from authors to themselves, in the same way that record labels and publishers already did in decades prior.

[0] At least until the Luddite Solidarity Union Robot Uprising of 2063