this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
523 points (99.8% liked)

Fuck AI

6766 readers
956 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 105 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why is it that most kinds of wire fraud are seriously prosecuted by the courts but they turn a blind eye on copyright fraud?

[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 48 points 1 week ago

In practice, laws surrounding copyright and even outright plagiarism mostly serve the party with the most lawyers, and this has been the case for some time.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People who pirate usually can't afford to bribe officials and politicians.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bribe? Good sir you mean lobby, sullying these corporation's, who are people, good names.

/s and I now need a shower.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago

Yes, thats what I said, bribe.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

small time pirates cannot afford that. Meta, OpenAI and similars can afford the lawyers

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 73 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Simple legislative solution.

Anything generated by AI in full or partially, is not eligible be copy-righted.

and just like patents, prove you didn't use AI via showing process of creation.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You can’t prove a negative.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

The logical conclusion of that would be that nothing created after the introduction of "AI" will ever be copyrightable, which would be an amazingly ironic twist of jurisdiction.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I would say the way to make this work would be that you have to promise that it doesn't use AI tools. If there's evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did, then you lose all copyright, from the past and future. Everything you've made becomes public domain.

[–] thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read that's the position some courts have already taken, as they should.

Copyright can only be applied to a creative work, and that can only be created by a human being.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think I need to know where Disney lands in this issue.

Though I guess it remains to be seen if they have the funds to fight the AI VC juggernaut that comprises basically all the growth in the American economy in the last 4 years.

i'm pretty sure this is the primary reason disney divested from AI video generation. they realized they couldn't successfully lobby the law in to allow AI to own IP rights and be the primary beneficiary of that law.

[–] Decq@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's only half a solution, the artist still gets fucked

i mean the courts have already decided that, but it would be nice for the legislature to agree

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As long as fake claims like this don't get punished, these things would continue.

[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is fraud, plain and simple. It baffles me how nobody is calling it what it is, and use funny words like trolling. Trolls don't actively defraud other people of their rightful income from copyrighted works.

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's easy to add rules to dmca takedowns, so I wonder why Google wouldn't implement any safeguards in YouTube.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Because Google’s interest is in making it easier for companies to make money, not individuals.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah this was bound to happen. I hope for some magic reason that they'll be all shut down but the musician

[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Headline is click bait. This is a classic scammer copying music to ear the musicians royalties, not an "AI company".

[–] PityPityBangBang@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

We need a new thing because "identity" ain't cutting it in a world of monetized profiles and AI clones.

So this sounds like someone is trying to get a challenge out to make AI generated slop copyrightable.