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

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

Sort:hotnew top

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 ⁨16⁩ ⁨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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨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 ⁨23⁩ ⁨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