It should not go unnoticed that the very same billionaires conducting the Plagiarism Crusade against non-white, female university presidents have their entire life savings tied up in a Plagiarism Machine.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
this is such a fucking dumb take. am i supposed to be in favour of the new york times for suing OpenAI, or against them for being the spearhead of the campaign against Claudine Gay?
Thinking is hard, why did you have to make me think? It's your fault that the world is complicated and that cannot rely on simplistic dichotomies to understand it.
Techbros gonna techbro - " aren't crimes when I do them" and "people who don't look like me are the cause of the fall of America" seems pretty on brand so
When I say I want to draw like an artist I want to learn from their techniques and experience and apply to my own. I dont literally want to bathe in their bath water.
I'm a bit torn on this. Ask any living author, artist, musician, etc. where they get their inspiration from, and they will name multiple sources. Isn't this the same thing?
I'm getting really tired of people asking this same deeply insulting and dehumanizing question as if it were novel, clever, or in fact had any value whatsoever.
NO. It's not the same, which would be patently obvious if you weren't trying to excuse treating artists as fungible Content Machines.
Taking directly from the source using an algorithmic generator to smash things together is not really comparable to the human act of creation even if based on inspiration imo
The key difference here is that when an artist says who inspired them they're just telling you what they like, and when an AI sources artists it's literally taking elements directly from their work and pasting them in.
For example, Tezuka was heavily inspired by Walt Disney, but that doesn't mean Astro Boy is made up of elements taken from Disney's work. It's Tezuka's own work, influenced by his own thoughts an experiences. Something an algorithm can't possibly have.
Try using a rifle instead of a shotgun. A billionaire used his tax-advantaged wealth to disrupt traditional educational values in service of influencing American policy toward a foreign government. Did he also use it to influence The Atlantic editorial policy? That's a story.
Ok, but, learning also almost always involves reading copyrighted materials… should *use* of what you learned come either copyright fees on every applicable copyrighted work?
No, you pay for the copyright *when you are trained* (e.g. textbook fees). AI probably is paying those fees?
But they multiply their value for humanity by infinity. The amount of good they will do is infinite. Therefore everything is morally acceptable. Especially multiplying their billions by infinity at the expense of everyone else.
How do you get all that juicy text & training data from places that don’t have those things easily & publicly available?
Just accuse the ‘elites’ in a group of something, they’ll all submit themselves to purity checks (process their papers, research, with your new AI plagiarism detector)
Comments
shut the fuck up
See treaties w/Native Americans.
See slavery.
See corporate criminality.
NO. It's not the same, which would be patently obvious if you weren't trying to excuse treating artists as fungible Content Machines.
No, you pay for the copyright *when you are trained* (e.g. textbook fees). AI probably is paying those fees?
Just accuse the ‘elites’ in a group of something, they’ll all submit themselves to purity checks (process their papers, research, with your new AI plagiarism detector)
Profit