An 'antidote' to the recently released AI poison pill project known as Nightshade. - GitHub - RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote: An 'antidote' to the recently released AI poison pill...
It isn’t unethical, either. Demanding compensation for analyzing data for non-infringing works is ridiculous. Licenses and permissions are irrelevant when exercising basic rights. Specific expressions deserve protection, but wanting to limit others from expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful, especially when they aren’t directly copying or undermining your work.
Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work and what our rights we afford us.
Your whole comment here quite succinctly demonstrates that you truly don’t understand ethics. “licenses and permissions are irrelevant” is quite a way to put “I don’t care about your desires, imma do what I want as long as it’s legal”. It’s unethical, full stop. You should do some introspection as your ideas are harming others and your inability to see that is quite sad.
I firmly believe in the public’s right to access and use information, rejecting the notion that artists deserve a monopoly on abstract ideas and general forms of expression. While artists should hold certain rights over their work, history shows that protecting just the specific elements, not broad concepts, fosters ethical self-expression and productive discourse.
What would we do if IP holders could just remove anything they didn’t feel like having around anymore? We would cripple essential resources like reviews, research, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. We would be building a utopia for corporations, bullies, and every wannabe autocrat, destroying open dialogue and progress.
It isn’t unethical, either. Demanding compensation for analyzing data for non-infringing works is ridiculous. Licenses and permissions are irrelevant when exercising basic rights. Specific expressions deserve protection, but wanting to limit others from expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful, especially when they aren’t directly copying or undermining your work.
Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work and what our rights we afford us.
Your whole comment here quite succinctly demonstrates that you truly don’t understand ethics. “licenses and permissions are irrelevant” is quite a way to put “I don’t care about your desires, imma do what I want as long as it’s legal”. It’s unethical, full stop. You should do some introspection as your ideas are harming others and your inability to see that is quite sad.
I firmly believe in the public’s right to access and use information, rejecting the notion that artists deserve a monopoly on abstract ideas and general forms of expression. While artists should hold certain rights over their work, history shows that protecting just the specific elements, not broad concepts, fosters ethical self-expression and productive discourse.
What would we do if IP holders could just remove anything they didn’t feel like having around anymore? We would cripple essential resources like reviews, research, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. We would be building a utopia for corporations, bullies, and every wannabe autocrat, destroying open dialogue and progress.
Please read this article by the Association of Research Libraries too. They can explain it better than I can.