Stripping away your carefully crafted wording, the differences fade away. “Hitting a randomizer” until usable ideas come out is an equally inaccurate description of either human creativity or AI. And again, the contention is that using AI violates copyright, not how it allegedly does that.
I guess some people get off on go team go, but to me looking at market share is very corporate thinking. If lemmy is better than reddit (which I think it is) it will just naturally grow, which is great. Whet I’m cheering for is that devs of software and other federated platforms are taking social media away from the business world by doing it better for free - whether that turns out to be lemmy or some other software.
The issue being raised is copyright infringement, not the quality of the results. Writers “borrow” each other’s clever figures of speech all the time without payment or attribution. I’m sure I have often copypasted code without permission. AI does nothing on its own, it’s always a tool used by human beings. I think the copyright argument against AI is built on a false distinction between using one tool vs another.
My larger argument is that nobody has an inherent right to control what everybody else does with some idea they’ve created. For many thousands of years people saw stuff and freely imitated it. Oh look, there’s an “arch” - I think I’ll build a building like that. Oh look, that tribe uses that root to make medicine, let’s do the same thing. This process was known as “the spread of civilization” until somebody figured out that an authority structure could give people dibs on their ideas and force other people to pay to copy them. As we evolve more capabilities (like AI) I think it’s time to figure out another way to reward creators without getting in the way of improvement, instead of hanging onto a “Hey, that’s Mine!” mentality that does more to enrich copy producers than it does to enrich creators.
Alright, I confess! Almost all of my training in computer programming came from copyrighted material. Put the cuffs on me!
OTOH now we will get to enjoy dashcam videos of car rollovers where the driver is like, Where’s that playlist… OH GOD OH SHIT !!!
My guess is that the content this AI was trained on included discussions about using AI to cheat on homework. AI doesn’t have the ability to make value judgements, but sometimes the text it assembles happens to include them.
+1 Insightful
To me it’s weird to even think of repairing stuff you buy as a “right” - that’s a given. The issue is the nonexistent “right” of a seller to restrict what a customer does with a product after buying it. That’s as ridiculous as a shoe company trying to dictate where you can or can’t walk. It’s a no-brainer, and should never have to be argued in court or anywhere else.
Brought that song right back into my head.
Again, AI doesn’t do anything, any more than hammers and saws build houses. People use AI to do things. Anyway, profiting from investors and speculators without giving creators a piece of the action isn’t a consequence of AI, it’s how our whole system already works.