• @SCB
    link
    -261 year ago

    Anyone who damages an AI model should be liable for the entire cost to purchase and train said model. You can’t just destroy someone’s property because you don’t like how they use it.

      • @SCB
        link
        -81 year ago

        … If an artist doesn’t want their art used, we already have a system in place for that. If that system needs expanding or change, then that is the discussion that should be had.

        Laws are better than random acts of destruction.

    • @Dozzi92
      link
      61 year ago

      They should just make it better, you know?

      • autokludge
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        Hey guys, I’ve been dumpster diving and got food poisoning. Can I sue the business?

    • @wavebeam
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      Maybe they should’ve thought about that before they integrated people’s content without consent???

      • @SCB
        link
        -9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The law would be the right response there.

        Especially since malicious actors can very easily abuse the fuck out of this.

        If you think there won’t be a post right on fucking lemmy itself about infecting images then posting them on free repos because “lol fuck ai” then you’re just not looking around, dude

        • @aliteral
          link
          31 year ago

          I understand where you are coming, but most AI models are trained without the consent of those who’s work is being used. Same with Github Copilot, it’s training violated the licensing terms of various software licenses.

          • @SCB
            link
            -21 year ago

            Then the response to that is laws not vigilantism

            • @aliteral
              link
              11 year ago

              I agree, but those laws need to be enforced and there is no one doing it.