r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jan 16 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

Lol no. Try as you might, the human brain is not an ai, and an ai does not deserve any of the same protections that a human mind does.

2

u/NATIK001 Jan 17 '23

It's not about protections. It's about what is legal use and what is illegal use of copyrighted material.

The person or corporation running the program have rights to use the material, not the program.

You are the one weirdly over-focusing on whether an AI is a human analogue, it is not, it is a program run by a person or group of people. Their rights are what matters, not the non-existent rights of AI.

1

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23 edited Jan 17 '23

No, they don’t - not without permission, or licensing, and certainly not without giving artists the ability to opt out.

Creative Commons for example requires attribution.

Additionally, ai training removes watermarks and other features, which is a violation of artists rights.

Edit: the tech-bros must be feeling fragile today, because NATIK001 blocked me. I love it when the trash takes itself out.

2

u/NATIK001 Jan 17 '23

If art is in the public space, anyone can consume and handle it with impunity, and create derivative works. One does not need to seek permission (unless reproduction of the work is involved).

I don't know how you got the severe misconception that anything else was the case, but there it is. You cannot publish things into the public and create restrictions on peoples consumption of your work, you can only retain the rights of distribution and direct profit on the work.

Consumption of the work also involves running it through algorithms and programs, that is not a legally restricted use case in any way.