TwilightVulpine

I see a lot of union voice actors speaking out on social media that they weren't even asked about this.

Hah, clever and depressing remix of that classic quote.

That's the real problem. UBI is often brought up in these discussions as a "maybe someday hopefully" while AI is here, now.

The longer it's delayed for UBI to be established (if it's even going to be), the more people will suffer being driven into more precarious jobs or left to misery. It's already depressing to think of artists being automated out of art to go work on amazon warehouse or something, but it's not going to stop at that. A lot of service and intellectual work could be automated just as easily, maybe even more so.

If UBI isn't already here, then opposing AI is the only sane option labor movements have.

I got into technology because I loved it. Now, ever bit of news I get I hate it a little bit more. What happened with improving things, sharing information and making the world better?

I paid for the whole Unicode, so I'm gonna use the whole ꙮ𐐘彁 Unicode

Collective agreements like this shouldn't even be valid without representation of the other party. The customers get no say in it and it's treated as if it's law? Ridiculous.

Technically you don't get the copy rights to a book when you buy it either, but you do get that one copy of the book and publishers can't knock on your door demanding it back. You can even lend it or resell it.

However as far as respecting the customers rights, game and digital media companies want to set their own terms.

Is it Piracy to restore access to something you bought and got taken away from you? Well, if it is, I'm pro piracy.

I heard there was such a fantastic whimsical thing called "false advertising, punishable by law", but apparently as long as companies keep a bundle of inscrutable legalese shoved up their asses and fart it at you AFTER you press the button clearly labeled "BUY", it mysteriously ceases to exist.

Funny that customers can't spring documents at companies to demand stuff and treat continuation of the transaction as implicit agreement. Then, suddenly it's unfair and ridiculous.

The anti-modding attitude of japanese tech companies is utterly ridiculous. People were literally arrested in Japan for modifying Zelda saves and generating pokémon. People's lives ruined over some flipped bits of fictional stuff.

I can only imagine this law was created to protect microtransactions, which if anything would make it worse. All this to defend companies fleecing addicted gacha whales.

Copyright in the US started as 14-year duration with an optional extension of more 14 years. Considering how fleeting digital media is, this seems far more reasonable than 120 years as works for hire.

People may advocate for physical media however much they want, in 120 years most likely it will all have become trash. It's not a reasonable duration for cultural preservation.

They can't even admit this mindset is stupid because after they ruin every worthwhile company they just jump to the next thing while the industry they left sinks.

If AI companies lose, small artists may have the recourse of seeking compensation for the use and imitation of their art too. Just feeling for them is not enough if they are going to be left to the wolves.

There isn't a scenario here in which big media companies lose so talking of it like it's taking a stand against them doesn't make much sense. What are we fighting for here? That we get to generate pictures of Goofy? The small AI user's win here seems like such a silly novelty that I can't see how it justifies just taking for granted that artists will have it much rougher than they already have.

The reality here is that even if AI gets the free pass, large media and tech companies are still primed to profit from them far more than any small user. They will be the one making AI-assisted movies and integrating chat AI into their systems. They don't lose in either situation.

There are ways to train AI without relying on unauthorized copyrighted data. Even if OpenAI loses, it wouldn't be the death of the technology. It may be more efficient and effective to train them with that data, but why is "efficiency" enough to justify this overreach?

And is it even wise to be so callous about it? Because it's not going to stop with artists. This technology has the potential to replace large swaths of service industries. If we don't think of the human costs now, it will be even harder to make a case for everyone else.