Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I kinda feel like all I hear is anti AI talk. Meanwhile I'm in the camp of don't demonize tools, demonize what people do with the tools that's damaging.
As for art, I don't know how to ascribe value to art. The Mona Lisa exists. As do copies of it that are worthless. At what point will the original have no value by virtue of the quality of the copies? Will a molecularly identical copy made with a Star Trek replicator make the original worthless? Or will it always be valued as the original?
Depends on what tool you're talking about.
Sadly in this case the tool, in its product form, is already in breach of a moral principle, because it is a derivative work and stealing labor without consent.
If you are referring to the GPT algorithms, that's more subtle. We need to figure out how to regulate it better.
Is the artist who writes with inspiration from previous works also stealing? Every story draws from other stories. Most art is always a representation of things that explicit consent was not always recorded to create.
This reminds me of Napster days. We can pontificate endlessly over the moral and philosophical arguments. Meanwhile, time is passing and the tools become more commonplace. I just skip to the end and change with the times. The other option is to die with old fashioned beliefs. Neither option is correct, it just is what it is. Which do you prefer?
You're so right. I guess it doesn't matter what happens between now and the inevitable future. -_-
You can be flippant or you can respond earnestly. You don't want to discuss then don't comment in the first place.