Comment

Comment on Valve dev counters calls to scrap Steam AI disclosures, says it's a "technology relying on cultural laundering, IP infringement, and slopification"

<- View Parent

AndyMFK@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Downloading isn’t stealing??? Are you delusional? It is in this case. Just because the law doesn’t recognise it is irrelevant, I’m not talking about legality, I’m talking about the ethics of ripping off small, underpaid artists.

Download a game, or a movie, or an album without the required license. That’s piracy.

If I download a Disney movie, and use clips of it in my game, how do you think a court case would go?

Or if I download idk, a Taylor Swift album and use that in my game without a license, do you think the law would agree with me or Taylor Swift?

And my only excuse is “I couldn’t afford to make my own music so I used yours”?

Using ai is no different. You’re taking someone else’s work, not paying for it, and using it in your training model without permission.

Just because they may have no ill intent is irrelevant, it only speaks to their ignorance on the matter.

“I’m sorry officer I didn’t mean to speed, I had no ill intent”. Ok, you’re still getting a ticket. Ignorance is no excuse.

source

Sort:hotnew top

golden@sh.itjust.works ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
dbzer0 users out here defending the capitalist system 😎

source
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

I’m talking about the ethics

You’re talking about your supposed right to enforce your idea of ethics on people who don’t agree with you, in a situation where there is no universal consensus, there is no law backing you up, and all supposed harms are abstract, indirect, and essentially a dispute about market competition.

Just because they may have no ill intent is irrelevant, it only speaks to their ignorance on the matter.

“I’m sorry officer I didn’t mean to speed, I had no ill intent”. Ok, you’re still getting a ticket. Ignorance is no excuse.

It matters because it’s one clear reason why the people harassing them are assholes. Pretty different from a situation where someone has violated an established law very closely linked to putting people at risk of direct physical harm and that law is being enforced.

source
- thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  You’re talking about your supposed right to enforce your idea of ethics on people who don’t agree with you, in a situation where there is no universal consensus, there is no law backing you up, and all supposed harms are abstract, indirect, and essentially a dispute about market competition.
  
  “illegal = unethical” is a fascist take
  
  The harms are real, but it’s also about control over your creations that you own, would you want your creations stolen, copied, mashed up with other stolen creations and the occational public domain thing, and extruded as slop?
  
  Or a better question, do you want the right for your creations not to be used like this? Surely it would be good if you could specify AI policies in licenses and they were legally enforceable?
  
  source
  - chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    “illegal = unethical” is a fascist take
    
    That is not why I’m mentioning it, I agree that legality and ethics are separate. The point is that regardless of who is right about the ethics of this, applying vigilante enforcement to this kind of situation is unhinged, and signals about whether something is ok to do like legality do matter for that. If such popular enforcement is ever justified, it’s in situations where people are getting hurt where there is little ambiguity and clear malice, that’s absolutely not the case here.
    
    source
    thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    so having rules against AI on a platform is “vigilante enforcement”??? no. what a bullshit take. is the “no bigotry” rule on a discord server “vigilante enforcement” of anti-bigotry ideas?
    
    “vigilante enforcement” would be DDoS-ing AI
    
    source
- agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  You’re talking about your supposed right to enforce your idea of ethics on people who don’t agree with you, in a situation where there is no universal consensus, there is no law backing you up…
  
  Uh yeah man there’s some people who are actually ok with having the brain worms inserted into other people’s ears? Sure it kills them and it’s being used for genocide but there’s no law against brain worms and since there’s like, a handful of people ok with it and it’s not 100% universally condoned ethically and it’s not illegal everywhere then how could you possibly be so mean to impose your morality on other people?!
  
  That’s what you sound like.
  
  “Oh hey billionaires are making Earth destroying computers that are killing jobs and stealing art and music and saying humans are better off without doing the one thing that we’ve always regarded as fundamental for humanity, but some idiots like instant gratification so they are ok with it, so no one should be saying anything bad about the earth destroying theft machines”
  
  source