You wouldn't download a car.
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
639 points (97.1% liked)
Political Memes
9117 readers
2243 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Memes like these reinforce my opinion of the average internet user.
Most of them are too stupid to begin to comprehend how stupid they are.
And they get mad whenever you call it out.
Just make sure to destroy the original when scanning it
To stop the competition. It's just business.
See my art? It's totally mine.
I did this almost 2 years ago for my profile, I think they've "fixed" it by now though.
Are people really arguing that copyright infringement is theft?
We have come full circle.
No. They're saying that if the government is calling copyright theft by all other measures, this should be too.
It is the playing field being unlevel that is under question in both cases.
It’s only copyright theft when the poors do it.
If you are wealthy enough it is, if not then you are fucked.
we're focused on the double standard. it's theft and we go to prison when the people do it. it's innovation and good when the billionaires do it. who's always getting stolen from is the poor, and always by the billionaires. any attempt to reverse this flow is met with prison time.
The anti-AI crowd appears to outweigh the pro-piracy crowd on Lemmy.
I’m anti-AI and pro-piracy.
I object to paywalling access to culture and knowledge, because it degrades our society, cuts people out of participating in ongoing cultural conversations, and keeps people from enjoying the fruits of human creativity based solely on their income level.
I object to AI for basically the same reasons.
it's not complicated, yet people act like it is
I can understand why. They buy into AI vendors’ premise — that copyright is the only way to fight back.
But that’s not going to work. Because 1) they win either way, but more importantly: 2) if you zoom out, this is kinda the big tech playbook in general, right?
“Okay, define what constitutes a ‘taxi service’, so that I can compete against them while avoiding the regulations that apply to them.”
“Define ‘employment’, so I can use people’s labor without respecting their labor rights.”
“Define ‘purchase’, so I can charge money for access to something but take it away whenever I feel like it.”
So when we say “Hey, you’re being a jerk by using people’s own work to compete against them and disconnect them from their audience”, they say “Okay, define that in objective, quantifiable terms, and we’ll stop doing anything that fits that exact definition… but we’ll still continue doing basically that, obviously.”
So you’re fine with free open source models?
Not really, but I guess it depends whether you’re asking about my personal beliefs or policy positions.
My concerns about gen AI basically fall into these categories:
- Environmental impact: water usage, energy usage
- Harmful output: misinfo, disinfo, reinforced biases, scams, “chatbot psychosis”
- Signal jamming: gen AI produces so much output based on so little input, it really could cause a communication equivalent of Kessler Syndrome
- Anticompetitive practices: using the works of creators to compete against them in the same market
- Labor alienation: what Doctorow calls “chickenized reverse centaurs”
- Undermining open access: see Molly White’s essay “No, Not Like That”
FOSS addresses some of those, to some degree. But none of them completely.
Should a technology be banned just because it’s not perfect? No. (And even if you decide a technology should be banned, you have to consider the practicality of actually enforcing it. It’s not like you can “uninvent” software.)
My biggest worry is actually the signal jamming. And there’s not really much we can do about that except to just decide not to use AI.
Edit: Btw, that was a good question and whoever downvoted you is a butt.
We don't have any state-of-the-art open source LLMs. We have open weights models. The reason for this is that for a true open source LLM you would need to open up your sources for training (which opens the possibility for people to sue you for using their content for training) and the techniques how you trained the model (which allows other developers to copy that to advance their own models)
The last true open source model was probably chatgpt 2 or something of that level.
Only one of them is done out of corporate interest. If the courts want to hold individuals accountable, they should do the same to corporations. With an effort equal to gains.
Correct. I really don't give a rat's ass if someone uses my work to generate some derivative or even copies it indefinitely for some purpose where it is only used privately. It's incorporating it into a commercial for-profit product and attempting to sell it or pass it off as their own that's not going to fly with me.
Difference is for me, if I feed a LLM your work and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement, especially if you monetise that output. Its devaluing your ability to make new and unique content if your work isn't protected if I can copy your style with a simple prompt for say a recruitment ad for ICE and there is fuck all you can do about it.
and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
Seems like the opposite. Keeping the same legal considerations, but replacing LLM with a person
if I feed an imitator your work and now they can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
producing a derivative work with substantial changes (like a new idea) is a classic, time-tested way to produce similar work while upholding copyright. If that's not infringement when ordinary people do it, then how is that infringement for LLMs?
Why fight to prop up capitalism?
"Style" is not a trademarkeable asset, you buffon.
You wouldn't steal a car
But i would feed it to chatgpt for some sweet output
Check your drive. Tee hee
It's not theft. Nothing is taken, no-one is deprived of their work, and no copies are even made
You’re not pirating media, you’re reviewing it for quality before model training.
Just make sure to keep a spreadsheet with your movie reviews and a storage bucket with the files.
Use keras to set up an auto encoder that you train weekly.
What legal precedent said theft is legal if it's used to train AI?
I think the Facebook thing where they downloaded massive torrent of books but it wasn’t piracy because “they didn’t seed”
That's not what happened.
Why don't you tell us what happened, then?
Here's an article about the case in question.
“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria said. “It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”
Still quite a bullshit ruling.
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn't prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn't commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
It's still bullshit.
Would you prefer that judges rule however they prefer even with no evidence to support the ruling was presented?
I'd prefer that you understood what "bullshit" means
And I prefer that you did but alas