Grimy

Yes

There's conventions for that, you just need to bring your own costume.

It's very weird for a community that's generally tech savvy. I think there's a lot of manipulation going on. I don't think it's a coincidence that almost only anti-AI articles get posted but I'm also against baseless accusations so I mostly shut up about it.

I mostly agree with what you are saying but I do think sourcing it ethically is a pipe dream.

It's impossible to get all that data from individuals, it's way too complicated. What's already happening is the websites are selling the data and they all have it in their terms of service that they can, even Cara the supposedly pro artist website.

The individuals are not getting compensated and all regulations proposed are aimed at making this the only option. If companies have to pay for all that data while Google and Microsoft are paying premiums to have exclusive access, the open source scene dies overnight.

It really seems to me like there's a media campaign being run to poison the general populations sentiment so AI companies can turn to the government and say "see, we want regulations, the public wants regulations, it's a win win". It's regulatory capture.

I'm also pro piracy and use it myself for all my media. I still consider it theft even if moral but I understand your point about it stealing from artist. I just don't think any current regulation will help artists. Personally, I advocate for copy left licenses for anything that uses public data but I sadly have never seen any proposed law or government document mention it.

Should we pretend they don't—assume everyone is arguing in good faith

It's a though problem but essentially yes. We should only ban because of content, so anything pro-putin would get the hammer but that comes with it's own problems. It's hard to draw the line. Is being pro-isreal an acceptable stance (not morally, thats obvious, but ban wise)? What about being pro-gasoline cars? I've been tempted many times to assume people bashing EVs are oil industry shills but it's really just people that fell for their propaganda and not someone that is actively participating in it. For the most part, downvotes do their job but everyone knows does can easily be manipulated as well.

If the news was about pro-AI bots floating around, I would probably be accused of being one because I'm very outspoken about it when it's a dissenting opinion on lemmy.

I just don't think it's a good standard to keep. I don't have a solution but I think trying to call out people on it will just end up in people calling each other that when ever an argument goes badly. In the end, I view it as a form of rhetoric.

Where in the article does it mention lemmy? As far as I am concerned, we do not have any influencers and we definitely won't be on the list.

I'm just saying assuming people are bots is a bad habit. Why not just assume I'm a paid shills and disregard my points? See how easy it is and why it shouldn't be encouraged?

Cool and creative, nice!

I know how AI works. I was using collage to show that it's much less transformative than AI while still being accepted.

It also doesn't copy bits. It has an internal network of bits and it shifts their weight with each images. It's learning from the images akin to how a human would, not copying. This is far from a perfect analogy, there's a mountain that separates a human brain from a neural network, it's just that both processes would be copying under your definition.

If I write a reference book, I need to reference my source if I'm quoting things. Even if I saw it in 2 different books .

This is a tool to help and guide. In terms of LLMs, trying to get references out of it is just a terrible use case. It's suppose to be verified at all times and clearly should never be itself quoted.

For images, this is like expecting each artists to reference what influenced them. Having unrealistic thoroughly invented expectations doesn't mean the tech is failing or bad.

This kind of attitude has some weird "everything has to be true on the internet" vibe. I wouldn't expect actual truth and references from reddit posts, I don't understand why people expect it from a guided rng machine.

If I read a book into a podcast and change a few words, take credit and don't give any to the original author is that ok?

If you read a hundred books and then built a podcast episode on what you learned from all those book, that would be okay and is a lot closer to what llms are doing.

Its just a combined data scraper with some random data.

That's what AI is. 98% of machine learning is scrapping data and training models on it.

I'd argue they are still most likely just idiots that got wrapped up in foreign propaganda, and not necessarily paid to post on lemmy of all places.

I just think calling people bots and shills has no place in honest discourse and the brushstroke always tends to get bigger and bigger.

It's asinine to compare AI with block chain. Block chain uses are very limited while my own 60 year old mother uses AI in her work. It depends on your work but there's immense use cases for AIs, and most people that use it regularly can attest it's a huge productivity boost even if it isn't perfect and it has to be verified.

I also suggest you look up copyright laws. It's clearly transformative. If collage is legal, how can AI not be?

Not to mention that we use AI already everyday. Any app that identifies songs, plants or insects uses AI. So does Google translate or your autocorrect on your phone (I'm not entirely certain about the second one).

If our government won't force these companies to copyleft the models, the least they could do is not create a walled garden where only Microsoft and Google can afford to train models, something you are advocating without realizing. You are essentially being a mouthpiece for big AI companies and big data companies who are trying to shoot open source in the foot.

Individuals aren't getting a dime, this is about if we can run these models on our PC or only through their subscription service.