Technology

Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.

Sounds like a plan!

The audacity... If our technology isn't allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.

Fuck Nick Clegg. Fuck that guy into the fucking sun.

Back in 2010 he managed to surf a wave of genuine optimism from young British voters who wanted something less shit, and found himself in a position where he could have brought about some genuine change for the better.

Instead that cunt hitched his wagon to the fucking Tories, who straight away announced an increase to university tuition fees. And who then went on to spend 15 years raping and pillaging the country like only fucking Tories can.

So yeah, fuck Nick Clegg.

So?

Yay, kill it please.

My permission costs $2.50 for every time AI reads my text or uses it in the background. Thank you! Come again!

Ah, if it isn’t my old friend Mr. Nick Clegg, with a dick for a face and an ass for a head!

Bank robbers say laws against bank robbery will kill bank robbery.

Pure entitlement mindset.

If your business is not able to stay afloat while providing fair compensation to those whose labor is used, whether employee, co-owner, or third-party, you are not entitled to keep running it. Society doesn't have a duty to prop up wealthy thieves.

Using the same logic, it is "implausible" that we would not take money from those who have it and give it to the sheer volume of people who need it.

Oh. Suddenly it doesn't work that way. Huh. Funny how that is.

Fine then, kill it.

If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.

There's a thread of thought that pops up in pro-AI posters from time to time: technology can't go backwards. The implication being that the current state of AI can only improve, and is here to stay.

This is wrong. Companies are spending multitudes of piles of cash to make AI work, and they could easily take their ball and go home. Extending copyright over the training data would likely trigger that, by the industry's own admission.

No, self-hosted models are not going to change this. A bunch of people running around with their own little agents aren't going to sustain a mass market phenomenon. You're not going to have integration in Windows or VisualStudio or the top of Google search results. You're not going to have people posting many pics on Facebook of Godzilla doing silly things.

The tech can go backwards, and we're likely to see it.

Also Clegg

asking women for permission would ruin my sexlife.

probably.

I doubt it. With that $500 billion dollar grant, you can hire people to make art to train on. That's a LOT of money.

Well let's hope it will.

Ha... He was the Lib Dem poster boy for a good decade. And they're something akin to pro-business libertarians. I wonder what Lib Dem Dep PM Clegg would have said to this!

AI is not just limited to these overhyped plagiarism machines. Will consent laws kill vision systems? Will they kill classifiers? Will they kill gradient descent? No, they won't.

I’m not a fan of intellectual property law. I’m down to abandon it, once we establish an artist stipend to pay a regular salary for artists to live a life of dignity.

Maybe introduce a tax on AI to pay for it.

How did the media industey call pirates? Parasites?