• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    I just thought you should know where you stand on the issue. It will make it easier to communicate. Just say that you want to expand copyright to cover AI training and boom. Clear statement. No long winded, nuanced debate needed.

    Don’t actually know where the hostility comes from. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I’ve described what I think is right pretty fully. I don’t need you to tell me where I stand.

      You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I’m not mistaking you for someone else. I’m just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I’m fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That’s it fam I’m out

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m not mistaking you for someone else.

        It’s just that this was only the second reply to me, and the first about copyright. I had read your posts here and have ended up confused. I’m sorry that I have jumped to the wrong conclusion about where you stand. The regulation you propose would create, as far as I can tell, a new form of intellectual property. That just leaves me baffled WRT you not wanting laws on IP, but I guess I will have to live with that.