• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone who damages an AI model should be liable for the entire cost to purchase and train said model. You can’t just destroy someone’s property because you don’t like how they use it.

    • Stuka@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      So artists can’t make certain art because some company’s AI might get confused. Right then.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        … If an artist doesn’t want their art used, we already have a system in place for that. If that system needs expanding or change, then that is the discussion that should be had.

        Laws are better than random acts of destruction.

    • wavebeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe they should’ve thought about that before they integrated people’s content without consent???

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The law would be the right response there.

        Especially since malicious actors can very easily abuse the fuck out of this.

        If you think there won’t be a post right on fucking lemmy itself about infecting images then posting them on free repos because “lol fuck ai” then you’re just not looking around, dude

        • aliteral@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand where you are coming, but most AI models are trained without the consent of those who’s work is being used. Same with Github Copilot, it’s training violated the licensing terms of various software licenses.