this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
542 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

70415 readers
5518 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
  • He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
  • Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business.

Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 19 hours ago

In principle I agree. The problem is that there are countries which don't care about respecting law and if you kill AI in the West, all that will happen is the West will get left behind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Rules for thee, not for me.

I thought copyright and patent laws were supposed to protect the little guy? Looks like as soon as they protect the little guy from big business, they stop mattering.

It's almost like, they weren't there to protect the little guy which is why big businesses never fought back against them.

I guess the useful idiots were wrong, again. Color me not-surprised.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago

Honestly not a bad thing, I mean you're not going to OpenSource your AI so this is a good alternative

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Then it should die.

This is like saying "if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die." Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 15 hours ago

No, it's not like saying that.

Please stop trying to use rape as a way to get an emotional response for something unrelated.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago

Cool, so I'll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.

Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I'll just assume it's ok.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago

Great, let's do that.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago

Contrary to popular belief among useful idiots, copyright and patent laws are not there to protect the working class.

If copyright and patent laws actually protected workers, why have we not seen rulers fight back against them until now?

This should be eye-opening to most of you, but that would involve admitting you were wrong.

Most people can't do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would "Implausible" for me to do so.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago

I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago

I'm ok with "ai" dying

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

oh noes

Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.

You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You're gonna lose your billions in investment if you can't plaigerize content?....fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.

Assholes

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Is this going in for a vote? Where do I vote?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.

Fucking rapist mentaility right there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

My thought exactly. If consent isn't needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?

This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 days ago (9 children)

If your industry can't exist without theft then your industry doesn't deserve to exist, pretty simple.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And not asking for it will kill whatever remains of the creative industries.

What do you want, a few years of ai slop followed by the more or less rapid decline of the internet (as it is overwhelmed with model collapse creative works and untrustable content) that will afford the likes of Clegg (in his role of 'meta' executive) a huge payout, or creative people having any hope of a sustained ability to make a living?

I know what I would prefer and I also know what is most likely going to happen. This is the result of decades of neo-liberal fossil-fuel-powered capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

correction: will kill people's attempts to make billions out of other people's art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.

Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don't need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same thing for most of billionaires' income sources.

"Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry]."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Oh, so it'd be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

So… what’s the down side to this bill?

[–] [email protected] 185 points 2 days ago (17 children)

If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

He admit it!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (11 children)

If you're giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn't seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man on Wall Street; it belongs to the shareholders.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Let's hope it does.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 85 points 2 days ago

Good, then it should die

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago

So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s

[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago

if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Good, I think it should be killed.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›