ombremad

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Also known as a random Internet asshole

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

You wish it were private. Would have saved you from the embarrassment.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The worst enemy of Mozilla is: Mozilla. This hasn't changed in many years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I personally think it’s a very bad idea and politics will catch up on you eventually. But whatever floats your boat.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 8 months ago (12 children)

5-7 trillion and they’ll still end up stealing data from all over the internet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Quick, everyone go to the new hype Nazi bar! (Well, not so hype anymore)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Sure, that’s the reason. I believe that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If instances don’t want to federate with some or all other instances, that is their choice, and that’s on purpose. Some just want to have smaller communities, stronger moderation, and sometimes be entirely private.

If you’re looking for instances that federate with most, you should choose yours accordingly. And I think you won’t have an issue with that, because most popular instances chose to go this route.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Because that’s not really how laws work. You don’t add laws over laws to just state the same thing again. Legal books are already fat enough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Yes, most image search engines are also unlawful. Google knows that firsthand. It's not because it exists that it's legal? You seem to believe that.

It's almost like if big tech corporations don't care about laws, and the problem is elsewhere?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I don't know why everybody pretends we need to come up with a bunch of new laws to protect artists and copyright against "AI". The problem isn't AI. The problem is data scraping.

An example: Apple's iOS allows you to record your own voice in order to make it a full speech synthesis, that you can use within the system. It's currently tooted as an accessibility feature (like, if you have a disability preventing you from speaking out loud all of the time, you can use your phone to speak on your behalf, with your own custom voice). In this case, you provide the data, and the AI processes it on-device over night. Simple. We could also think about an artist making a database of their own works in order to try and come up with new ideas with quick prompts, in their own style.

However, right now, a lot of companies are building huge databases by scraping data from everywhere without consent from the artists that, most of the time, don't even know their work was scraped. And they even dare to advise that publicly, pretend they have a right to do that, sell those services. That's stealing of intellectual property, always has been, always will be. You don't need new laws to get it right. You might need better courts in order to enforce it, depending on which country you live in.

There's legal use of AI, and unlawful use of AI. If you use what belongs to you and use the computer as a generative tool to make more things out of it: AI good. If you take from others what don't belong to you in order to generate stuff based on it: AI bad. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

view more: next ›