Sturgist

Eh, it happens. If that was an honest attempt to troll....kids these days need to up their fucking game.

slightly less stupid

Which is why that's definitely not what's going to happen....

Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group and Index on Censorship made a submission to the court, arguing against proceedings taking in place in secret and in favour of open justice. Today, the Tribunal has rejected the Home Office’s application, stating it did not accept “that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security”.

Neither myself nor, I'm assuming, the person you're replying to wants to have the government with their grubby little fingers in our data.
What the person you're replying to was saying had literally nothing to do with what you asked. Has to do with the above. It's shocking that a UK court actually made a sane call. In this case, they decided that no, the government wasn't entitled to a closed case. That the proceedings would be open, and the details would be available to the public. Like in a functioning democracy.

Local storage

taps nose

This

Technically a grey area. How many humans do you see here posting walls of text and putting the attribution at the very top, if the attribution is different from their username of course.

ChadGPT

Maybe not a post joke world, but certainly one where Onion articles are more believable than real ones....

Exactly, I was trying to make that point, and specifically looked at Meta and the current "Torrenting is only Illegal if you seed" bs defence they're using. Which was completely ignored by our friend over there.

Sure, cool...coolcoolcool....

So how about the ongoing lawsuit where there's been hard evidence of Meta torrenting terabytes of data, and then claiming it's not illegal because they didn't seed?

And that's literally only for people who posted on FB or Instagram or whatever other garbage data mines Meta are operating. The above is what I was talking about. The highly public trial that relates specifically to torrenting data illegally to train an LLM. That's what I was talking about. Whoever got fucked by Meta's T&C's to train their AI are SoL, which is why I didn't mention any training they were doing on their platforms specifically.

I personally believe there could be a place in a person's creative workflow for the use of AI as a tool to enhance their own creative work....with caveats....

As for the ethics of using AI to copy and art style? It's theft. End of.

These models are trained on stolen data. The artists/musicians/writers/intellectuals, or their estates, never gave permission for their works to be used to train these models. They never receive royalties, or payment of any kind, for the use of their works. And as we're finding out, at the very least, Meta took that data...those creative works... illegally. People's lives have been destroyed by laws put in place to protect IP. I personally feel those laws are fucked and should be fully scrapped in favour of something that actually protects the people creating these works. That doesn't change the fact that when Joe Shmoe shares a torrent he could be hit with fines and possibly jail. Fines alone could essentially make a person's life literal hell for however long they have left. The companies who have trained these models are likely going to get a "cost of doing business" slap on the wrist.

It's ethically ambiguous if you look at it from the standpoint of "IP law shouldn't exist" while totally ignoring that even if these companies get away with it common people nearly never will.

because why else would you go to a whole other post to "prove a point" about downvoting?
It wasn't you (you claim)

I do claim. I have an alt, didn't downvote you there either. Was just pointing out that you were also making assumptions. And it's all comments in the same thread, hardly me going to an entirely different post to prove a point.

We will not get the benefits of Generative AI if we don't 1. deal with the problems that are coming from it, and 2. Stop trying to shoehorn it into everything. And that's the discussion that's happening here.

I agree. And while I personally feel like there's already room for it in some people's workflow, it is very clearly problematic in many ways. As I had pointed out in my first comment.

I'm not going to even try to justify to you what I said in this post or that one because I honestly don't think you care.

I do actually! Might be hard to believe, but I reacted the way I did because I felt your first comment was reductive, and intentionally trying to invalidate and derail my comment without actually adding anything to the discussion. That made me angry because I want a discussion. Not because I want to be right, and fuck you for thinking differently.

If you're willing to talk about your views and opinions, I'd be happy to continue talking. If you're just going to assume I don't care, and don't want to hear what other people think...then just block me and move on. 👍