There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

somape9743 ,

Let people have fun. Stop infecting everything with sjw agendas.

Eggyhead ,
@Eggyhead@kbin.social avatar

I was on board, until you made it dumb.

RememberTheApollo ,

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Oh sure, but I can’t have Godzilla and Hercule Poirot solve crimes together.

Flaky ,
@Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi avatar

Wasps are too NSFW but a Disney-Pixar rendition of 9/11 is a-okay it seems.

(also fun to bump into you again after that thread lol)

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks. And yes, I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m not using the right code words.

Visstix ,

The only thing that has changed is that it’s easier to alter images. Good luck avoiding copyrighted material online, with people posting self made stuff everywhere.

Fisk400 ,

How does the AIs even know what a Kirby is? Kirby is copyrighted and I doubt Microsoft got permission from Nintendo to include images of Kirby in their training data.

Whirling_Cloudburst ,

This is probably the most valid concern really. I remember people drawing Yogi the Bear wearing a gestapo uniform and other such absurdities back in high school art class. The only thing that has changed is that you don’t need the same level of skills to be an attention seeker in a place where the public can be found.

I’m more concerned about people making convincing false narratives on cable news than fictional characters doing things that are in very poor taste.

Hubi ,

DallE was intentionally trained to include a ton of pop culture and celebrities. Copyright laws are not ready to deal with these scenarios and the current approach of most companies is to offload the legal responsibility for generated images to their users.

Zoldyck ,

Unofficial fan-made things perhaps?

Fisk400 ,

Nintendo still owns the trademark on those and the creator owns the copyright.

BreadstickNinja ,

Copyright law does not explicitly cover inclusion in a training data set, though that will be tested by a number of court cases currently underway.

Copyright historically is exactly what it says in its name: the right to copy or reproduce an image for commercial purposes. Because an AI doesn’t reproduce the images in its training data set, and because AI generation models do not include the image data of their training set, it’s not explicitly covered.

My personal opinion is that copyright law would need to be updated to cover the training data case, but the courts could circumvent that and declare it covered under existing law. That would be based on a misunderstanding of how image generation works, but courts don’t always necessarily act based on technical understanding.

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

And if the courts rule in a way that limits US company’s ability to train AIs, then I hope they practice their shocked Picachu faces for when people start using AIs created by countries that don’t care about US law.

Blapoo ,

They’re trained with pics of Kirby, 100%

They almost certainly have filters in place to try and stop these cases.

And we all know the problem with swear filters . . .

I_Clean_Here ,

How does it “know” anything? How does it know what “9/11” is or a plane or Super Mario? Cause it got trained with data from all over the fucking Internet.

Fisk400 ,

Yes, that is the problem that I am highlighting with the question.

Also the people generating this isn’t writing “Kirby doing 9/11”. They are writing “Kirby sitting in a cockpit with two skyscrapers outside the window”

There are stock photos of all those things that you can buy but there is no legal stock photo assets of Kirby.

bioemerl ,

You shouldn't need permission to include images in training data.

Fisk400 ,

You should if you plan on making money on it. I assume that Microsoft does.

bioemerl ,

You should have to actually pay for works that cost money, but authors don't have the right to nitpick and five tune the ways that their stuff is used so long as the uses aren't copying and redistributing their work.

Authors have tried to use excessive control of copyright many times and get shot down every single time with things like web scraping and search engines. Demanding payment for AI training specifically is a massive grift and overreach from a small group of people trying to hold back progress so they can make a quick buck.

Fisk400 ,

It’s fun to see that the only way for AI tech bros to approach the copyright problem is to claim that it’s a Jewish conspiracy that shouldn’t exist.

bioemerl ,

claim that it’s a Jewish conspiracy

Wait wait wait.

Did your see me say "a small group of people wanting to make money" and assume I was talking about Jews instead of authors?

Fisk400 ,

No, I am saying that you see it like that. The inherent conspiratorial logic in what you are saying is analogous to Jewish conspiracy theories.

bioemerl ,

Not even slightly.

The Jews control the world conspiracy is rooted in the idea that there is a secret cabal of powerful people who manipulate the world systems behind the scenes.

My post contained literally no logic of the sort and even talked about how authors are regularly shot down and copyright just isn't as powerful as they think it is.

It's not about a secret group of wealthy people controlling the state.

It's not about people controlling things through subversion.

It's literally just about the status quo of copyright law and the fact that authors regularly try to extend it to hilarious and harmful overextension and fail.

The only connection between my post and Jewish conspiracy is "small group trying to make money".

Fisk400 ,

Ok I withdraw my accusations of you being conspiracy brained and settle for just having a retarded view of what copyright is.

bioemerl ,

If you're not able to read my comment in enough depth to understand it has nothing to do with Jewish conspiracy theories you're in no place to call anyone or anything stupid.

EternalNicodemus ,
@EternalNicodemus@lemmy.world avatar

Based as hell ngl

vector_zero ,

Why not? If you feed the entirety of a given IP (say, every frame in every Star Wars film or show), you could train an AI to produce imagery derived exclusively from copyrighted material.

NounsAndWords ,

I think the final product and the ideas and concepts that it holds are the important aspect for copyright.

If I cut up a Star Wars poster into 1,000,000 tiny pieces, and then reassemble them into a self portrait with no reference whatsoever to Star Wars and sell it, would I have committed copyright infringement?

If I did the same thing but made a stormtrooper out of the pieces, is the copyright issue with the source material, or the final product?

MoogleMaestro ,

Both in that case are a copyright violation, depending on which images your source. Collages are a frequent example of this, it's already an answered problem.

bioemerl ,

Collages when used in a transformative way are not a copyright violation. It's mostly a case by case thing because people will make a "collage" that is just an image with some sparkles around it.

The example you're responding to where you make a picture of your face would almost certainly not be considered a copyright violation.

Flaky ,
@Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi avatar

You raise a good point, but I really don’t care about Nintendo’s feelings.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •