NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9079381" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Yes, because people are far too comfortable with letting themselves think it’s “just a tool” and therefore harmless. People’s actual livelihoods are in jeopardy. Loaded language is absolutely warranted.As long as it’s trained on work that the artists are not being notified of, let alone compensated for, I don’t believe any use of it is justifiable.Good, because I don’t believe there is room for discussion. Generative “AI” is art theft. Period.Yes, yes, the actual legal status is still being sorted out in court, and probably will be for a while. Regardless of what ends up being decided, I believe that the training of generative AI on work without the knowledge or consent of the works’ creators is morally equivalent to theft.Yes, copyright law is a wild and woolly beast. Still theft to exploit people’s labor for value without compensating or even informing them.Would I call that background stolen? No. But I would call the body of work from which Chat4 drew to make its predictions about what sequence of words would be most likely to satisfy your prompt stolen. What you have there is therefore not itself stolen, but rather is a product of theft. Maybe not from a copyright law perspective (yet), but I certainly think from a moral perspective.I would still call it a product of theft, because the material the bot was trained on was stolen.</blockquote>

Verification