FaceDeer

That’s what the copyright cartels want you to believe, sure.

It’s not the case. Rooting for it to become the case is repellent.

I’m an opponent of the death penalty. If there’s a convicted murderer on death row I would oppose executing him.

Does that mean I’m definitely a murderer?

Every law is, fundamentally, a restriction on someone’s freedom. The key justification for why that’s okay is that the law protects one or more people from harm in the process. So in this case the question is “who is being harmed when an AI generates this particular configuration of pixels? How are they being harmed?”

When you dig into that it’s more complicated than the simple knee-jerk “that stuff is just plain bad!” Attitude that has been drummed into the general public.

And so, exactly as I predicted, we’ve got commenters coming out to defend the poor innocent copyright cartels against those awful people pirating their stuff. Violating sacred EULAs, even, what monsters.

This isn’t a question of “walking it back”, though. There was never anything in copyright law that prohibited analyzing a copyrighted work before. This is an attempt to extend it.

A while back I saw a thread in a piracy community that was cheering some other lawsuit against an AI company for similar reasons, so I wouldn’t bet. The anti-AI sentiment is quite strong in these parts.

And now watch everyone cheer for Sony and Warner to succeed in their lawsuits to extend the grip of copyright. What a timeline.

I’m thinking that gender and sexuality aren’t even a simple spectrum, they’re a multi-dimensional space. There are some blobby fuzzy-bordered regions of that space that have traditionally been called “Man” and “Woman”, but the more we look into it the more complicated it all gets and the more arbitrary that partitioning becomes. We’re already starting to see that there may be portions of that space that likely don’t belong to either category, or where the categories overlap, so I’m of the opinion that treating them as super important might be a bad idea that’s bound to lead to heartbreak and confusion.

Same here in Canada. Really wondering if they’ll do the same for Lake Ontario, I suspect that’s going to go over very poorly.

You speak as if Venezuela had a choice. Viceroy Rubio is likely making the deal on their behalf.

Next I’d like to see him try renaming Canada itself, it’ll just cement how absolutely ridiculous he is.

It’s because these products work. They actually provide value to the users, despite opponents’ insistence to the contrary.

Fortunately there’s an extension for that, so choices remain available for the user. Open source and local.

We don’t want it.

It says more than half, so it’s a sure thing.

One’s got a four in it and the other’s got a three, the bigger one is obvious.

A particularly schadenfreudic incident of face-eating.

Oh no, 341 foreign tourists! This is serious.

(The snark isn’t aimed at you, OP, just at the general way that news articles like this are written)

When you say “we all know”, who are you talking about? Everybody that you know? That’s a social bubble, a self-selected subset of “everybody.”

“Horrible” is in the eye of the beholder, and people have differing opinions on stuff. You probably like and subscribe to someone that lots of other people would consider “horrible” in turn.

Or they’re doing it because they wanted a particular piece of artwork.

I’ve generated a ton of stuff over the years and never once thought about selling any of it, because I generated it to use it. Or just because I thought it would be funny.

I think there’s a lot of projection here. A lot of people who use AI art tools couldn’t care less about whether they’re called “artists”, it just doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. The goal is to have the art, not to gain some particular arbitrary title.