• dacreator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m wondering if we give AI consciousness is it more likely to identify humans as a threat to the Earth and try to eliminate us or would it empathize with it’s creators? Seems risky…

        • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Humans are not a threat to the Earth. Do you mean that humans are a threat to the environment? That would mean that we’re a threat to ourselves. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy us to save us from ourselves.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          This line of thinking assumes it would prioritize Earth exclusively over humans, which is only likely if the AI is created with that specific intent.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Rather hypocritical of you to do the exact same thing you’re accusing others of: hating on a strawman.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ironic how your comment is centered around hating a group too, except you’re doing it on behalf of large corporations that are stealing other people’s work and polluting search results with soulless crap.

      If I look up art on Google, I would want to see art, not AI slop. And until AI slop starts citing its sources so we can find the actual creative minds behind what it generated, searches are becoming more worthless.

      Or you can just create a straw man to hate I guess

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Zero art has been stolen.

        You cannot steal a jpg.

        And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

          Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

            The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

            The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

            • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

              Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

              he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

              I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

            • LWD@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I do like your libertarian line of reasoning. If the law doesn’t work very well, it should be abolished. I’ve seen people say the same thing about the EPA and OSHA.

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.

                  • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Are you a professional at making shit up?

                    I’m an anarchist, I don’t believe in companies existing at all.

            • LWD@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              OpenAI corporation is stealing people’s work

                • LWD@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Whatever you call stealing from the powerless and giving to the powerful.

                  Maybe you think plagiarist deserve more ad revenue than the minorities they plagiarize from. I think your defense of the powerful is pretty gross, and I hope you are at least getting paid for it.

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just “copyright bad.”

          It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that

            • LWD@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              But isn’t it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it’s harming?

          • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while “intellectual property” is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.

            It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

            • glimse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Intellectual property comes before any of those things. If I paint a picture, it’s my intellectual property whether I apply for some legal definition or not.

              It’s not the same thing as a copyright. Anyone can have intellectual property

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          OpenAI Corp applauds your defense of their theft

            • LWD@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I want protections for all smaller artists. Why are you fighting on behalf of OpenAI?

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?

                • LWD@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  You’re fighting for them because you don’t want them to have barriers in their corporate growth. Okay.

                  IP laws are a last resort in encouraging people to be creative. Remind me, which of us hate creativity?

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Um no, we’re defending actual open AI models, I couldn’t give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don’t.

            You’re actually advocating for the big corporations, what’s going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nothing like the thrill of being part of an angry mob! All the dopamine of righteous fury, none of the responsibility.