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
AI companies monetising people’s IP need to pay up. End of story. Make smarter ai next time that can “learn” with less content - or as it stands, so called ai is just a massive database that procedurally mixes content to generate what looks like “new” content.

>>gumbal+vK
Calling it a massive database makes it clear you lack a basic understanding of how it works. Please go learn the basics before commenting.

>>gagany+af1
It is a massive database, but not in the classic sense. I believe your comment is a projection.