237
But piracy is a crime...
EDIT: This guy is a clown
So it's only piracy when poor people do it?
this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
237 points (98.4% liked)
Actually Infuriating
639 readers
4 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
Poor people aren't "running an industry"
Napster was…but it wasn’t owned by rich people and didn’t benefit rich people so it was targeted.
Sounds okay to me. Fuck the AI industry.
Asking banks for permission would kill the robbery imdustry.
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
AI has brought nothing of value to the table. Just another grift.
If anything, it's delgitimized the actually useful ML projects in medicine and data processing.
So what's the downside?
It doesn't actually kill AI, it would just kill any open source solution and create a monopoly for the handful of companies that either have all the data or can afford to pay for it.
There's like 5 publishing houses, 3 record companies and a couple of websites that "own" almost all training material.
Lol lmao
That's only if they want to try tonprofit off of it.
Free use still allows you to train your own AI.
And the tech would be better if nobody profited off of AI
Copy left license would be the best scenario but I don't think that is what we are getting sadly. That being said, you need the big foundational models. The average individual cannot train their own AI from scratch.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing?
Then it deserves to die.
Isn't it true that historically when universities trained these things, they used their own data, "not randos on the internet" or "anything that wasn't nailed down" (random scraped copyrighted content).
GenAI could be ethical, it just, isn't, because corporations are assholes.
Don't tempt me with a good time
Then it should die.
If it kills the ai industry thats fine. They can't survive in our current system with IP laws they shouldn't survive.
Nick Clegg can go fuck himself!
The solution presents itself!
scribbles notes Oh good!
Dunno who this guy is, but he's either a techbro or doesnt know what hes talking about. It will kill LLM's and the art bots that work by stealing data, but thats not how all AI is trained. Make actual AI and not theft-bot and you wont have that problem.
That is how I feel about banks and money
k
Promise?
Ok
You mean how laws stop the theft industry, and the murder industry... Like they should
REALLY????
Took a minute to figure out that this wasn't https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg 🙀
Edit: Okay turns out it is the nick the useless clegg i thought it was some namesake since the photo in article looked different to what i remember... Wow what a bastard...
...but it is that Nick Clegg
What what?! 😦 Looks like i lived under a rock 🤯
It is, unfortunately.
As policy makers in the UK weigh how to regulate the AI industry, Nick Clegg, former UK deputy prime minister and former Meta executive, claimed a push for artist consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
Oh wow 😯😳 okay i lived under a rock, did not see that happening 😞