Ai and generating an outcome

[trappedslider]

Someone so wise, must be outrageously handsome as well.

I was expecting more votes along that line.

 

[trappedslider]

btw in case anyone was wondering I did vote for ""Yes if they had actual consent"

 

[Scribe]

I was expecting more votes along that line.

I dont think most people care about ethic's in their consumption.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I am surprised by the high number of yes vote here (especially on the first item, totalizaing 40+% so far) because given the tone of the discussions, I'd have thought the local crowd was much more against AI on principles rather than because of the legal uncertainties about scraping the Internet.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am surprised by the high number of yes vote here (especially on the first item, totalizaing 40+% so far) because given the tone of the discussions, I'd have thought the local crowd was much more against AI on principles rather than because of the legal uncertainties about scraping the Internet.

The question posed is if AI got permission, would we be OK with it. Seeing as how that's the #1 concern myself and others have voiced, it shouldn't be a surprise that it got a lot of yes votes.

 

[schneeland]

My vote is #1, too - proper licensing of training material is one of my major concerns with AI-generated content. I do, however, wonder what the difference between #1 and #3 is. To me #1 already implies artists consenting to the use of their material for AI training.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

My vote is #1, too - proper licensing of training material is one of my major concerns with AI-generated content. I do, however, wonder what the difference between #1 and #3 is. To me #1 already implies artists consenting to the use of their material for AI training.

My understanding is that #3 requires actual consent, while 1 is having permission to use, either because copyright has lapsed and the work entered the public domain, or because some other reason gave permission to use, like a law giving a blancket exception for AI training, or a specific exception (like "universities can train models as part of their mission to diffuse knowledge as long as they give it to the public for free" or say the library of congress).

 

[Ryujin]

My understanding is that #3 requires actual consent, while 1 is having permission to use, either because copyright has lapsed and the work entered the public domain, or because some other reason gave permission to use, like a law giving a blancket exception for AI training, or a specific exception (like "universities can train models as part of their mission to diffuse knowledge as long as they give it to the public for free" or say the library of congress).

I read them as being essentially the same, however, I chose 3 to be beyond all doubt

I figured that it would be obvious for something that requires no consent (public domain), or for which the artist/author is dead and therefore cannot provide consent.

 

[CleverNickName]

 

[dragoner]

I played around with chat for something I am writing, and it was worthless. So not replacing me yet.