Technology

57455 readers

4073 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

212

Media Companies Like Vox Are Feeding Their Journalists' Work Into An AI Wood Chipper (aftermath.site)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Copyright law is broken. But I don’t think that means we have no obligations to each other as human beings when we build on each other’s work.

Absolutely! This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.

We had the same argument during the crypto craze. The financial system is broken, but 10 years later I think we all agree that crypto is pretty clearly not the answer.

That's not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.

What if I don't want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?

That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.

I didn't mean to compare the technology -- though there are some similar scam vectors, but that's a different conversation.

I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying -- correctly -- that "the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers". But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.

I worry that there's a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.

I'm also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with -- pirates and open-sourcerers -- turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.

An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?

No. The idea that someone should be allowed to control what others do with their expressions and ideas is a very new concept (~100 years) and it has not brought any benefit to society