Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9252371" data-attributes="member: 18">Unfortunately because you worded the poll so badly, your results are completely meaningless even as a survey of ENworld!Personally, I'd suggest that &quot;public domain&quot; is a dangerously nebulous concept, so for-profit AI should not really be allowed to train on that. Particularly because of the &quot;tragedy of the commons&quot; issue, which you seem to be unaware of. If AI can be used for a profit, especially AI art/writing can be copyrighted, it's going to essentially steal everything that is public domain, and then make it private, and be used to sue people who do works derivative from public domain sources. Do you understand this? If AI art/writing can never be copyrighted, then that's workable, but that's the only way that works.Re: actual consent, it would have to be informed, positive consent from the actual, specific artists/writers. And that's not what's happening. Instead, large platforms which have fat EULAs/TOSes are beginning to attempt to make deals to essentially sell off the artwork of the artists/writers to AI companies, without informed consent from any of those people, and without positive consent either - positive consent means opting in. Whereas here companies are generally trying to make it opt-out - which isn't really consent at all (by any meaning of the term) - if they're allowing even that.Something that has never been an option for the vast majority of people under 40 today, and not for a lot of people under 50, if they ever went through periods of precarity. You really need a situation where you outright own a house/flat to make that approach even potentially viable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9252371, member: 18"] Unfortunately because you worded the poll so badly, your results are completely meaningless even as a survey of ENworld! Personally, I'd suggest that "public domain" is a dangerously nebulous concept, so for-profit AI should not really be allowed to train on that. Particularly because of the "tragedy of the commons" issue, which you seem to be unaware of. If AI can be used for a profit, especially AI art/writing can be copyrighted, it's going to essentially steal everything that is public domain, and then make it private, and be used to sue people who do works derivative from public domain sources. Do you understand this? If AI art/writing can never be copyrighted, then that's workable, but that's the only way that works. Re: actual consent, it would have to be informed, positive consent from the actual, specific artists/writers. And that's not what's happening. Instead, large platforms which have fat EULAs/TOSes are beginning to attempt to make deals to essentially sell off the artwork of the artists/writers to AI companies, without informed consent from any of those people, and without positive consent either - positive consent means opting in. Whereas here companies are generally trying to make it opt-out - which isn't really consent at all (by any meaning of the term) - if they're allowing even that. Something that has never been an option for the vast majority of people under 40 today, and not for a lot of people under 50, if they ever went through periods of precarity. You really need a situation where you outright own a house/flat to make that approach even potentially viable. [/QUOTE]

Verification