Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.

See, now THIS is rentrophy.

If someone ever made dummy cartridges they would sell nicely, I suspect.

@Num10ck Put a black cartridge where the color cartridge should be?

That’s thing, though. That’s the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren’t doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.

If you use an AI as just another tool, that’s one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.

@nous I figure a judge wouldn’t count prompts because they are basically commissions. If you commission an artist to create a piece for you, it’s still their piece. If a corporation commissions the artist to create the piece, they can own it as work-for-hire, which is EXACTLY what Thaler was trying to claim in this case, but they aren’t the creator.

If you can replace “AI” with “Professional Artist” and you wouldn’t be eligible for your amount of input, then it’s not copyrightable.

@foggy There’s another article that clarifies the decision. Works created by a human with AI assistance are copyrightable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

Works created solely by AI, like if all the human did was enter a prompt into ChatGPT or Midjourney, are not copyrightable.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Gaming isn’t as bad as cryptomining farms and the stuff required by an AI server, man. You need to go look up some of the load on this stuff.

And you still haven’t gotten back to me on how AI improves society. People too lazy to learn to draw can say they drew something they actually didn’t? That’s not improvement.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Anyone could create art before. Anyone could edit photos. And with practice, they could become good. Artists aren’t some special class of people born to draw, they are people who have honed their skills.

And for people who didn’t want to hone their skills, they could pay for art. You could argue that’s a change but AI is not gonna be free forever, and you’ll probably end up paying in the near future to generate that art. Which, be honest, is VERY different from “making art.” You input a direction and something else made it, which isn’t that different from just getting a friend to draw it.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Out of curiosity, how is the world appreciably different now that AI exists?

@SCB The Luddites gave way to Unions, which yes were more effective and gave us a LOT of good things like the 8 hour work week, weekends, and vacations. Technology alone did not give us that. Technology applied as bosses and barons wanted did not give us that. Collective action did that. And collective action has evolved along a timeline that INCLUDES sabotaging technology.

Things like the SAGAFTRA/WGA strike are what’s going to get us good results from the adoption of AI. Until then, the AI is just a tool in the hands of the rich to control labor.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer interesting you mention stopping burning coal. Because mining and burning coal is bad for the environment.

Guess what else is bad for the environment? Huge datacenters supporting AI. They go through electricity and water and materials at the same rates as bitcoin mining.

A human being writing stuff only uses as much energy as a human being doing just about anything else, though.

So yes, while ending coal would cost some miners jobs, the net gain is worth it. But adopting AI in standard practice in the entertainment industry does not have the same gains. It can’t offset the human misery caused by the job loss.

@new_acct_who_dis Yeah, but that wouldn’t hurt as much because all the people out of work would still have healthcare.

AI displaced creatives will lose their healthcare.

I think marketing execs are COUNTING on that misinterpretation to make the product seem like more than it is.

The problem here is that people want a service and businesses want a product. The “free-rider” period is businesses masquerading as a service in order to accumulate a product: Us.

Because that is what they are selling. Our writing and our thoughts and our interactions. They are selling them to advertisers, to AI developers, and in the case of membership communities they are selling us to each other. But make no mistake, they are selling US.

The problem with the enschittification model is not that “it’s from the point of view of a freeloader err, free-rider” but that “it applies to a poor business model.” It can only be solved when the business model changes, when userbase is no longer a product, or consumers AND a product, but are treated as the recipients of a service and members of a community. Right now only the Fediverse model does that.

What’s really killing the business end of this is the rot economy. Vampire capital keeps throwing money at companies that present their userbase as a product. The vampires want a profit, and they are told that the profit will come from a largue userbase creating user-created content. So they lure the product to the company by presenting it as a service, and then pull the rug out so that they can monetize the userbase and get endless growth. Things get progressively worse as they try to min/max the business: minimizing the costs and maximizing the revenue by rent-seeking from the users. Then the users, the PRODUCT, up and leave.

Enschittification is happening because companies see users as their product, their source of content, and their source of revenue all at the same time but have presented their business to the users as a service.

Their business model needs to radically change. And social media needs to shift to governments and non-profits providing it.

This weekend my aunt got a room at a ery expensive motel, and was delighted by the fact that a robot delivered amenities to her room. And at breakfast we had an argument about whether or not it saved the hotel money to us the robot instead of a person.

But the bottom line is that the robot was only in use at an extremely expensive hotel and is not commonly seen at cheap hotels. So the robot is a pretty expensive investment, even if it saves money in the long run.

Public schools are NEVER going to make an investment as expensive as an AI teacher, it doesn’t matter how advanced the things get. Besides, their teachers are union. I will give you that rich private schools might try it.

@linearchaos How can a predictive text model grade papers effectively?

What you’re describing isn’t teaching, it’s a teacher using an LLM to generate lesson material.

@Gsus4 We’ll get a neat toy out of it and hopefully some laws around the use of that neat toy in entertainment that protect creative workers. Also we’ll have learned some new things about what can be done with computers.

@SCB The Luddites were not upset about progress, they were upset that the people they had worked their whole lives for were kicking them to the street without a thought. So they destroyed the machines in protest.

It’s not weird, it’s not just a trend, and it’s actually more in touch with the reality of employer-employee relations than the idea that these LLMs are ready for primetime.

@DarkMatter_contract It’s not that the AI CAN replace jobs, it’s that they’re gonna use it to replace jobs anyway.

The burst will come from those companies succeeding and quickly destroying a lot of their customer’s businesses in the process.