Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.

I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.

Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?

Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.

  • deadbeef@lemmy.nz
    6·
    5 hours ago

    AI models produced from copyrighted training data should need a license from the copyright holder to train using their data. This means most of the wild west land grab that is going on will not be legal. In general I’m not a huge fan of the current state of copyright at all, but that would put it on an even business footing with everything else.

    I’ve got no idea how to fix the screeds of slop that is polluting search of all kinds now. These sorts of problems ( along the lines of email spam ) seem to be absurdly hard to fix outside of walled gardens.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      9·
      5 hours ago

      See, I’m troubled by that one because it sounds good on paper, but in practice that means that Google and Meta, who can certainly build licenses into their EULAs trivially, would become the only government-sanctioned entities who can train AI. Established corpos were actively lobbying for similar measures early on.

      And of course good luck getting China to give a crap, which in that scenario would be a better outcome, maybe.

      Like you, I think copyright is broken past all functionality at this point. I would very much welcome an entire reconceptualization of it to support not just specific AI regulation but regulation of big data, fair use and user generated content. We need a completely different framework at this point.

      • MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        5 hours ago

        See, I’m troubled by that one because it sounds good on paper, but in practice that means that Google and Meta, who can certainly build licenses into their EULAs trivially, would become the only government-sanctioned entities who can train AI. Established corpos were actively lobbying for similar measures early on.

        As long as people are paying other people, these things will equalize eventually. Ultimately, it would be much more likely that the cost of AI production would become so severe that it would no longer be viable as a business (which, frankly, is fine. There will eventually be enough public domain content that AI will be at the quality it is today with public materials alone.)

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          3·
          5 hours ago

          You seem to have a lot more trust in the invisible hand of the market and the inability of corporations to change copyright regulations to their liking than I do.

          I have seen no evidence that “as long as people are paying other people” the money goes anywhere but towards billionaires. And… well, the absolute dismantling of public domain has been a running gag for ages.

          And again, the corpos would not need to pay anybody anyway. Google already has a perfectly legal license to train AI on all of Youtube, Meta on all of Instagram and Facebook. You are telling me it’ll all even out in 100 years when the Internet goes into the public domain. That doesn’t sound like it’ll work the way you’re saying it’ll work.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          2·
          5 hours ago

          There will eventually be enough public domain content that AI will be at the quality it is today with public materials alone.

          So, AI will always be ~95 years behind the times?

          Except the AIs produced by Disney et al, of course. And those produced by Chinese companies with the CCP stamp of approval. They’ll be up to date.