• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.orgtomemes@lemmy.worldMAGAts be all ...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sorry to hijack your comment, but seeing that “my grandchildren are in my daughters’ ovaries post” right above this one and your comment made me wonder:

    Why is gas so damn cheap in the US while saying “healthcare is expensive” is a giant understatement.

    Compared with Europe, where gas prices are regulated (and gas stations still seem to be doing just fine to the point that new ones keep popping up around where I live at an astounding rate) while it’s the healthcare that is subsidised and made availiable to all.

    How come? Why aren’t gas companies in the US be as greedy as hospitals and pharma there? Why aren’t European gas stations few and far between, continuing to barely hold on, fail and ultimately closeleaving Europe gasless?




  • If anyone deserves copyright over a photo, it’s the people that had their work photographed without permission. Then, the most deserving of the copyright are the camera and film manufacturers that made photography possible.

    I think this is an angle that isn’t pften taken. The advent of photography was a very similar situation to the current advent of AI.

    However, there are some crucial differences. For example, a photo can realistically be taken for personal use, which is either protected by law, or at least tolerated. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t have this going for it (you wouldn’t really go to the trouble of training an AI model for personal use). Even if the model and everything else is fully transparent and open source, it’s still gobbling up copyrighted data for commercial purposes - the model’s authors or the users’. Luckily, there is no AI fair use carveout (and I hope there won’t ever be one).

    Another thing I’d like to point out: in the vast majority of european legal systems copyright isn’t called “Copyright”, but “Authors’ rights”, i.e. its primary purpose isn’t to restrict copying as much as it’s protect the interests of the author (not publisher/corporation, although this unfortunately got bastardised a while ago).

    I can only hope the EU takes a reasonable approach to AI (that is, ban it from gobbling copyrighted work, require current “tainted” models be purged along with corporations paying reparations to the authors, as well as banning EULA clauses along the lines of “by signing up we get to feed all your information into the AI”).

    By my first comment I was trying to point out the fact that the “time invested” argument isn’t that strong. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better arguments or that I don’t agree with the general idea, just that we need better arguments if we want to win this fight.