Technology

If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.

Good, then it should die

If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.

The audacity... If our technology isn't allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.

If your industry can't exist without theft then your industry doesn't deserve to exist, pretty simple.

if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.

Good, I think it should be killed.

I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.

If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.

Fucking rapist mentaility right there.

oh noes

Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.

You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You're gonna lose your billions in investment if you can't plaigerize content?....fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.

Assholes

Pure entitlement mindset.

If your business is not able to stay afloat while providing fair compensation to those whose labor is used, whether employee, co-owner, or third-party, you are not entitled to keep running it. Society doesn't have a duty to prop up wealthy thieves.

If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.

Cool, so I'll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.

Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I'll just assume it's ok.

Bank robbers say laws against bank robbery will kill bank robbery.

I'm ok with "ai" dying

Using the same logic, it is "implausible" that we would not take money from those who have it and give it to the sheer volume of people who need it.

Oh. Suddenly it doesn't work that way. Huh. Funny how that is.

So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s

Fuck Nick Clegg. Fuck that guy into the fucking sun.

Back in 2010 he managed to surf a wave of genuine optimism from young British voters who wanted something less shit, and found himself in a position where he could have brought about some genuine change for the better.

Instead that cunt hitched his wagon to the fucking Tories, who straight away announced an increase to university tuition fees. And who then went on to spend 15 years raping and pillaging the country like only fucking Tories can.

So yeah, fuck Nick Clegg.

Then it should die.

This is like saying "if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die." Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.

If you're giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn't seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?

Same thing for most of billionaires' income sources.

"Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry]."

Sounds like a plan!

AI is not just limited to these overhyped plagiarism machines. Will consent laws kill vision systems? Will they kill classifiers? Will they kill gradient descent? No, they won't.

Also Clegg

asking women for permission would ruin my sexlife.

probably.

Good.

The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.

There's a thread of thought that pops up in pro-AI posters from time to time: technology can't go backwards. The implication being that the current state of AI can only improve, and is here to stay.

This is wrong. Companies are spending multitudes of piles of cash to make AI work, and they could easily take their ball and go home. Extending copyright over the training data would likely trigger that, by the industry's own admission.

No, self-hosted models are not going to change this. A bunch of people running around with their own little agents aren't going to sustain a mass market phenomenon. You're not going to have integration in Windows or VisualStudio or the top of Google search results. You're not going to have people posting many pics on Facebook of Godzilla doing silly things.

The tech can go backwards, and we're likely to see it.

So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would "Implausible" for me to do so.

correction: will kill people's attempts to make billions out of other people's art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.

Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don't need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.

Oh, so it'd be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.

My permission costs $2.50 for every time AI reads my text or uses it in the background. Thank you! Come again!

Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.

Well the AI companies and investors should have understood that building an industry off of doing something questionable was risky and risks don't always work out.

Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.

If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.

So?