Technology

60021 readers

3392 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

787

Spotify just changed their TOS, giving them unprecedented rights to create "derivative works" from audiobooks (storyfair.net)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by gedaliyah to c/technology

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They frame it as though it's for user content, more likely it's to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (14 children)

This will be an unpopular opinion here.

I'm not against AI but the rules have to be in laws and regulations. First, AI can't use copyrighted material without paying for it. It can't either use material without asking individually.

The second point is that AI can't created copyrighted material. Whatever an AI created, it's free of copyright and everyone can use it.

Third, an AI can't be a blackbox. It has to be comprehensive how it works and what the AI is doing. A solution would be to have source available code.

Fourth, AI can't violate laws, create and push misinformation, and material used for misinforming.

And, of course, anything created using AI has to be indentified as such.

The money is in what the AI can do, the quality of the result, and the quality of the code. All the other things isn't valuable.

[–] TwilightVulpine 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I imagine that if AI devs didn't sneak around copying people's works in bulk but instead asked for permission or paid for a license, artists wouldn't hate it like they do now.

[–] MalachaiConstant 6 points 10 months ago

My gut feeling says that's not entirely true. Generative AI has so many qualities that make could it offensive to so many people, I think we were going to see a pushback from artists regardless. The devs' shitty training practices just happened to give the artists a particularly strong case for grievances.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah artists were fine with publishing companies doing this since the dawn of literacy but this time it is completely different

load more comments (11 replies)