TechTakes

1436 readers

179 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

lol eat shit Sasso (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 7 months ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] gnomicutterance@hachyderm.io 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 10 points 7 months ago

"when one of the worst people you know makes a good point" comes to mind

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Always wondered when some big industry would throw their might against gAI, and I did notice that there was a certain lack of 'AI generated this music' vs 'AI generated this copyrighted art/movie' (Which I assumed was in part because the companies behind the latter want to use the AI to go after their workers'. But I do fear this is going to be of using one demon to slay the other. So if this all plays out I reserve the right to say 'See! The problem is capitalism!'. Like an AI trained on other AI's this will all just get worse.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can you copyright AI products?

I am no fancy copyright lawyer, but if I understand the legal situation in the US, you cannot claim copyright unless there is a human being involved. There was a case a decade ago with a photographer setting up a camera that a monkey or ape used to take a selfie. PETA sued on behalf of the animal, claiming the copyright, and the court ruled that only humans can have copyright so the picture had no copyright.

Though the prompt fans will probably claim to be artists, so I guess more legal wrangling.

Probably ending in something like every time an AI image is created Disney get a cent. And following that, to combat piracy, social media platforms demand proof of current AI subscription to upload image. Sure, in theory you can upload an image you yourself has created without AI, but in practice the algorithm will find it to similar to something else and execute automatic takedown. Isn't it simpler just to pay your AI/Disney tax?

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think the jury (no pun) is still out on whether gen-AI extruded content can be copyrighted. No doubt there will be a human in the loop "signing off" on the extruded product.

[–] jonhendry@iosdev.space 8 points 7 months ago

@gerikson

Underpaid artists in China and India "repainting" or "touching up” or "customizing” the images, like those mass-produced Thomas Kinkade prints that would have a few highlight dabs painted on by hand by someone.

Then, I assume, the AI-generated part would be protected the same way a Photoshop-generated background gradient would be as part of a completed image.

[–] self@awful.systems 12 points 7 months ago

0 for 2 on those dudesy lawsuits

wonder if any of those randos claiming the special was funny, the Carlin family signed off on it, and dudesy is playing 4D legal chess, will make an appearance in this thread now that the writing is on the wall

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure this hackernews being pissed about this is some sort of utilitarian

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39919014

[–] self@awful.systems 5 points 7 months ago

hope the health department is happy! imagine how much dopamine they’ve robbed from all the families who didn’t get severe food poisoning at my restaurant

god it works for everything, utilitarians are the fucking worst

[–] saucerwizard@awful.systems 4 points 7 months ago

Wait it was THAT Will Sasso?!