Everything AI generated should be in the public domain

[-]

ironically enough what seems to be a LLM has determined that my comment refrencing that this is the goverment rules in the you-ess is "politikal conntent' no mention of parties or a should or people or nothing, here's a newly discoverd sub to avoid

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

okraspberryok@reddit

Yep. It should also list its sources and ai companies should be forced to pay those sources

[-]

mohirl@reddit

Not even AI generated, but the weightings and exact training results should also be.

[-]

Esmiachtltnochoevp@reddit

Nah man i don't want my masters thesis to be public domain

[-]

NLK-3@reddit

YYYEEEEEEEEESSSSS!!!

I've been saying AI creation shouldn't be for profit. They are simply visualized "what if" blueprints or ideas, not content to be owned. You may have "influenced" their creation, but that's no different from simply saying an idea and literally something else showing it to you.

I want AI to be successful for what it can do without corrupting everything else, but of course, the world is made of assholes, maybe even for assholes/by assholes. In other words, somebody has to ruin it for everybody else.

[-]

Ping_Me_Maybe@reddit

The LLMs like chatgpt are trained off public data, but lots of models are trained on private data... if I use my company's data to train an AI, why should that be made public?

[-]

millionwordsofcrap@reddit

Honestly, if I was going to put legal restrictions on AI tomorrow, I'd go a lot farther. Assuming the bubble doesn't burst, we're about to have some absolutely insane issues with AI-generated video and imagery in the latter half of the 2020s, and here's how I'd solve most of them:

- Images and videos produced are restricted to a 600x600px jpeg, and have a clear "COMPUTER GENERATED--NOT FOR COMMERCIAL OR EDUCATIONAL USE" watermarked across the entire output.

- Audio produced has a bland TTS voice in the background repeating the same phrase.

- No raw text output. You get a watermarked jpeg with the text on it.

[-]

Lb2815@reddit

wow so to combat ai you want to remove freedom of speech . what could possibly go wrong

[-]

millionwordsofcrap@reddit

Y'know, I don't think your comment is unfair, necessarily. There are definitely concerns about where freedom of speech begins and ends when it comes to this sort of thing.

But is it free speech if, say, powerful people hate an activist for trying to expose them, so they put out fake footage of them saying or doing things they never said or did, and that footage is indistinguishable from real life? What about pretending more people were at your rally to support you than there actually were? What about deceiving people as to the source of information--making up an AI scientist as a mouthpiece for everything you want people to believe is science? When technology advances so far that we can no longer trust the evidence of our eyes and ears, how do we factor free speech into that?

The classic example of the limits of free speech is, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." I think a lot of what AI is at risk of being used for is very much comparable to that.

[-]

uhdoy@reddit

I agree with you and the only reason I’m saying this is because I don’t want your argument to be weakened: the whole you can’t yell fire factoid isn’t true. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/make-no-law-the-first-amendment-podcast/id1341530706?i=1000414891643

[-]

millionwordsofcrap@reddit

Huh. TIL!

[-]

eekspiders@reddit

Watermarks are not censorship. You can still see it, the same way you can see stock photos, but you just get the additional info that it's computer generated

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

KelpFox05@reddit

Freedom of speech ends where safety begins.

[-]

Princess_Moon_Butt@reddit

I definitely want companies to build in a difficult-to-remove watermark, and I think that should be a requirement for companies that operate in the US and offer AI generation. Base laws that make it harder for the average person/company to generate this stuff are gonna be good. Additionally, put the burden on the groups that profit from the sharing/viewing of these videos. Require social media platforms to put "possible AI-generated content" tags on things that get reported as AI/fake.

But it would still be fairly easy for a bad actor to evade those rules, so past that, I think we'll end up with validation agencies for bigger matters- kind of like that "No animals were harmed" tag we see at the end of movies that the Humane Society gives. Accuracy checking agencies for workplace training videos, "Made with ethical AI tools" for box office films, levels of confidence for legal evidence submittals, and so on.

It's messy, and it sucks that this is the case, but laws already have a hard time keeping up with technology. Groups that don't need to be bound by specific laws to grant/revoke their approval are going to be way more effective than legal recourse.

[-]

this_curain_buzzez@reddit

I like this. But here’s to the bubble bursting.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

Yes! Public use really needs to be restricted and while this feels harsh vs what is popular now, in a perfect world it'd do wonders to prevent some of the worst people are doing with the tech.

[-]

Rude-Pangolin8823@reddit

All art should be public domain, artists learn off other people's works and everything.

[-]

Nixinova@reddit

It already is. Works generated entirely without human touch cannot be copyrighted.

[-]

wrighteghe7@reddit

How much % of human touch should it be for it to be copyrightable?

[-]

ScienceAndGames@reddit

That’s for the courts to decide

[-]

APC2_19@reddit

So why train stuffs if everything gonna be public anyway?

[-]

EarthTrash@reddit

It's not that crazy. The intellectual property rights around AI use is an unsettled issue. AI companies have argued that if they weren't allowed to steal and use everyone else's IP without paying, they would be out of a business. I don't really see how they have a sustainable business model even now, when they haven't paid for anything.

[-]

wrighteghe7@reddit

There are AI image generators trained on public domain+stuff legally owned by the company

[-]

wrighteghe7@reddit

Everything should be in the public domain

[-]

Grouchy-Channel-7502@reddit

There was already a ruling in the US that AI images cannot be copyrighted. So I guess they are already kind of in the public domain?

[-]

dr_wtf@reddit

There was no such ruling. There was some guidance put out (not a legal precedent) explaining that some, but not all, AI images can be copyrighted in the same way that some, but not all, photos can be.

[-]

SuperFLEB@reddit

And you get to use the wonderful phrase "Monkey selfie precedent" when talking about it!

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

I can back this.

People who make it should also be required to do ocean clean up for a day

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

You've not once tried to make an AI image or video?

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

no.

I have ethics.

[-]

fenixnoctis@reddit

Holy virtue signaling

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

If you think not wanting to steal from people and caring about the planet is virtue signaling than i think this is a you issue

[-]

fenixnoctis@reddit

There’s a difference in caring and wanting everyone to know you care

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

How is using AI to generate something unethical if it's for personal use?

Unless you're creating something in the style of a specific artist and profiting, what is the issue?

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

Because it's an environmentally disastrous industry.
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o
TL;DR: Every time you press enter on a prompt you turn a glass of fresh drinking water into sludge and toxic fumes.

[-]

Life-Fly7175@reddit

whatever device you typed this from is non ethical it was mined from slave labour a true ethical lifestyle would be hermit in the woods

[-]

TheIronSoldier2@reddit

Would you like to quote which part of that article says each prompt consumes a glass (8-16 ounces) of water?

Because even extreme estimates that I've seen cap out at about 1 milliliter (0.03 ounces) of water per prompt. Most are around the 0.3-0.4 mark.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

The anti AI folks are blowing things out of proportion.

[-]

TheIronSoldier2@reddit

You confuse me as being pro AI.

I'm not, but I am pro fact.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

Why are you not pro AI?

[-]

pt-guzzardo@reddit

Wait until you find out what happens when you spend an hour doomscrolling reddit.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

Yep - people like to pick and choose what electricity sources to complain about.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

Can this be mitigated if we do things with renewable energy sources?

And why is water a concern? Can't water be replenished as needed?

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

Possibly, but these data centres are using public power grids in the US, they don't care to find solutions when that's ready and cheaper. It's all about profit, not public good.

Water is a concern because the people living nearby need fresh water to drink and bathe in, instead they are getting black sludge pumped into the system. Imagine trying to take a shower and just because you live near a water-hungry data-centre it's all black and grimy...
If it's not going to the people that water isn't likely to become sewage, so it won't usually go to a treatment plant, now it's the problem of the ocean or your local waterways.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

The electricity is there for purchase, and they purchase it. That seems reasonable.

[-]

UnkarsThug@reddit

If it's evaporated, how is it becoming sludge? Typically speaking, data centers have closed loops of specially treated water (buildup in the pipes could damage the chips) pumped through the center, and an area of transferring the heat to other water to be evaporated, meaning the chemicals aren't getting in the water that's being evaporated.

Is this a power plant problem or an AI problem?

[-]

Velocity-5348@reddit

Water gets used by evaporative cooling, common on a lot of data centres.

You *could* do without that, but it's more energy intensive and costlier in a lot of cases so in practice, generating stuff with AI consumes water.

[-]

UnkarsThug@reddit

Which is a metaphorical drop in the bucket compared to the quantity used for farming. The amount of water necessary to make a cheeseburger vs the amount of water to answer a question or generate an image are just leagues apart. It takes over 600 gallons of water to produce one beef patty. (Splitting what the cow drinks over the beef it can produce, as you need about 1,799 gallons of water per pound of beef. Source )

Comparatively, the amount of water dehydrated in a data center for a prompt is closer to a tablespoon or two depending on measurement. And that's worst case scenario. I run local models on my computer or phone sometimes, and I just use air cooling for those. If you don't eat a burger for a day, and still use AI to generate 1000 images, you've still done more to lessen water usage by an order of magnitude (600 gallons vs about 4-5 gallons) if you genuinely believe water usage is a problem. And even more if you generate the images locally rather than using one of the large companies systems.

[-]

Velocity-5348@reddit

You're not wrong, and I don't bring up the water thing myself for that reason.

The difference that among a lot of people growing food is seen as essential or at least having value. A lot of people view most of the work these data centres are doing as worthless or actively harmful to society, and they do consume a fair bit of energy.

[-]

UnkarsThug@reddit

Fair enough. I guess a difference of point of view.

And food is obviously valuable. Not everything is as water intense as cows. Not trying to say people should eat nothing or something. Just was trying to give a sense of scale..

[-]

UnkarsThug@reddit

It definitely can. Just a matter of how it's done. It just needs electricity, it doesn't matter where it's from.

And water isn't really a concern. As I said elsewhere:

Which is a metaphorical drop in the bucket compared to the quantity used for farming. The amount of water necessary to make a cheeseburger vs the amount of water to answer a question or generate an image are just leagues apart. It takes over 600 gallons of water to produce one beef patty. (Splitting what the cow drinks over the beef it can produce, as you need about 1,799 gallons of water per pound of beef. Source )

Comparatively, the amount of water dehydrated in a data center for a prompt is closer to a tablespoon or two depending on measurement. And that's worst case scenario. I run local models on my computer or phone sometimes, and I just use air cooling for those. If you don't eat a burger for a day, and still use AI to generate 1000 images, you've still done more to lessen water usage by an order of magnitude (600 gallons vs about 4-5 gallons) if you genuinely believe water usage is a problem. And even more if you generate the images locally rather than using one of the large companies systems.

If water was actually a concern, switching to different types of food would do far more, so should be the top priority, again, by an order of magnitude. It would be worrying about heat made by the stovetop when the house is on fire.

A lot of the issues that have happened have been based on people not doing things like construction correctly, or musk getting permits to not have to care about emissions. They aren't inherent to the technology.

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

Can this be mitigated if we do things with renewable energy sources

No. We cannot. There is currently NO sustainable AND (no or, AND) ethical way to use AI.

You should not be using AI

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

I work in big tech so it would be pretty hard to get away from it.

There's a push for us to inject AI into everything.

[-]

Spicyalligator@reddit

That article doesn’t actually say anything

It starts off with a story about a woman whose pipes have gone bad, which she blames on Facebook

It then talks about how the construction of the facilities can cause soil to mix in with nearby water

Before then admitting that these data centers utilize water for evaporative cooling. Aka, turning water into steam.

Using AI doesn’t “turn water into sludge” or produce toxic fumes. If you’re going to fear monger about AI, at least be accurate about it. Talk about the geopolitical ramifications of ai videos, or even the contribution it might have on global warming.

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

Eh, I'm dramatic. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Data centre = worse quality of life.

That's more accurate, yeah?

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

Have you personally been impacted in a negative way by AI?

It's useful for a lot of people, but most of us by far don't live near data centers.

[-]

eposnix@reddit

The burger you had for lunch is about 20x worse for the environment

[-]

bunker_man@reddit

This is a pretty disingenuous take since it is far less environmentally disastrous than most things humans do. So old arbitrary to bring up as a unique case unless someone is also against gaming, using reddit, and so on.

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

This is bait.

[-]

jickleinane@reddit

Things humans make are also trained off of everyone and everything

[-]

jreashville@reddit

I think it already is actually….

[-]

DotBitGaming@reddit

This... Actually makes a ton of sense.

[-]

TerraCetacea@reddit

We really went straight from a basic standard of writing our bibliographies in MLA format to computers telling us “trust me bro” with zero backup info. The least it could do is provide the sources it drew its response from.

[-]

Excellent-Berry-2331@reddit

ChatGPT does, Gemini does.

[-]

6pussydestroyer9mlg@reddit

Sometimes it will just make up sources

[-]

AtomicPotatoLord@reddit

Just tell it to make sure to provide links to sources. And always enable thinking.

[-]

TerraCetacea@reddit

How? I tried right after commenting this and got nothing useful

[-]

AMinecraftPerson@reddit

You can also ask it to provide sources, and it will give links which you can then check

[-]

Excellent-Berry-2331@reddit

Click the "+", go on "Deep Research", then click on the research, and on the right, there will be sources; OR, in some normal posts, there will also be sources under the post.

[-]

TerraCetacea@reddit

Wow, thank you!

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Routine_Size69@reddit

You know these AI companies aren't even profitable yet right? No way they're also going to give out stuff their company creates for free.

[-]

Ajunadeeper@reddit

Crazy, they can't afford to pay people for their work and they can't afford to be non-profit.

Guess that means they can't afford to operate and should not exist 👍

[-]

gramerjen@reddit

If stealing from others is not profitable maybe they should stop selling the things they stole.

[-]

eekspiders@reddit

Seriously, how did they manage to make stealing not profitable? Actual thieves either keep the stuff they steal or sell it—a net gain either way

[-]

Brandoncarsonart@reddit

How do companies where the main resource is theft not become profitable? That's almost as bad as going bankrupt while owning a casino.

[-]

OneTripleZero@reddit

Honestly? Infrastructure costs.

Imagine being an art thief where the only place you can sell your stolen pieces is on the moon. It's like that.

[-]

Brandoncarsonart@reddit

Good analogy. There's a very good reason art thieves don't do their deals on the moon. It's simply a bad business model. It's unnecessary and cost-forebidding. Thats the same reason the ai bubble is about to pop.

[-]

wlstjffls@reddit

The artists/creators that their models train after aren't necessarily profiting either. You think they agreed to their works being used for training without compensation?

[-]

skip_the_tutorial_@reddit

You like openai? The non profit?

[-]

heqra@reddit

they function solely off of intellectual theft.

[-]

shpongolian@reddit

Are AI companies selling the stuff their users generate? Or do they own the rights to it?

Not that this idea would realistically be enforceable anyway

[-]

this_curain_buzzez@reddit

Too bad for the companies then huh

[-]

DotBitGaming@reddit

Their company doesn't create anything without millions of works that they don't have permission from the copyright holders to use.

[-]

limitedteeth@reddit

I think everything should be public domain.

[-]

00PT@reddit

Making all AI models open source is going to make regulating them to the level that most people want literally impossible. Many models have numerous safeguards in them right now, but that doesn’t matter if anyone can access and do whatever they want to their own personal version of the algorithm.

[-]

Device420@reddit

Well if you look at it that way then EVERYTHING should be public domain. Everything we do we learned somewhere from someone. That song you spent a year perfecting is just notes and words you heard before arranged differently. Same thing for books and movies. Even art.

[-]

hecaton_atlas@reddit

See, if that happens, you wouldn't be able to own anything you make. You could have something you spent 2 years of your life painstakingly making, and when you finally upload it to show it to the world, it's "public domain" and doesn't belong to you anymore. Anyone can just take it, make copies of it, redistribute it, make money off it. No creator would want to work so hard just for other people to claim credit.

In our current reality, creators readily understand that people are inspired by the people that came before them. That's why you don't need things to be public domain for people to be inspired and learn from your work. That definition is just important when it comes to claiming ownership and commercializing the work.

[-]

formershitpeasant@reddit

I never got this argument. Almost all art is derivative. Human artists study shitloads of previous works and incorporate those lessons into what they create. Like, if you go to school and learn brush strokes, composition, and see 10,000 pieces of art that inspire you to make something, all of that is derived from other people's work. It's very rare that someone does something truly original. AI is just like any other technology that does something people did before. You used to have skilled artisans that made horseshoes or glass bottles or whatever, then eventually technology could do it and the product became cheaper and more accessible. It's the same thing with AI art. If your job is being replaced by AI it's the same thing. It sucks for you for sure, but it's the march of progress. When technology can do more and more human labor, that's a good thing actually.

[-]

Uranium-Sandwich657@reddit

Everything should be public domain.

[-]

DDell313@reddit

No. This makes no sense. Just because a company steals people's work, doesn't mean it should be ok to continue that theft by allowing free use of their hard work.

That's like saying since your groceries came from farms spread across the country I should be able to walk in your house and fix me a sandwich for free.

[-]

ThirstyOutward@reddit

It already is?

[-]

Switchell22@reddit

So at least in the US: The models themselves are not public domain, but all AI-generated content is public domain. The reason being is that only humans can have copyright.

[-]

These-Maintenance250@reddit

i hope this is true

[-]

Dreadsin@reddit

Check out the court case Thaler v. Perlmutter

TL;DR version: someone tried to copyright an image created by a model and listed themselves as the author. Their copyright was rejected because non-humans cannot be listed as authors of anything. This was upheld in court: things made entirely by a machine are not eligible for copyright

[-]

ZorbaTHut@reddit

It is.

But note that AI generated content significantly modified by a human is not public domain, the human's changes are copyrighted. And AI generated content as part of a larger whole does not make the larger whole public domain.

[-]

bunker_man@reddit

Basically if you want sole rights over and image you have to edit it and then delete the AI original. Albeit laws are kind of hazy about how much editing you would have to do.

[-]

OmNomSandvich@reddit

that makes sense, I think a good test is whether the human component on top of a blank white square could be copyrighted for example.

[-]

Ateist@reddit

...as long as models weren't overtrained on copyrighted material and didn't produce carbon copy of it.

[-]

Snoo63@reddit

Monkey Selfie Precedent?

[-]

Life-Fly7175@reddit

Everything should be public domain

[-]

lool8421@reddit

Unless eventually it becomes sentient, then it might need its own rights

[-]

boopbaboop@reddit

Outside of “only humans can hold copyright,” which is established law, you also can’t copyright an idea (which is also established law but not as regards AI yet AFAIK). You can copyright your own work product, but not the idea it’s based on. So, IMO, AI prompts shouldn’t be considered work product, because they are ideas.

[-]

JustLeafy2003@reddit

All AI-gen images and text are already public domain.

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

This would seriously cut into tech revenue and hurt tech stocks. These are heavily represented in the S&P 500 so most major index funds would fall as a result.

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

Good :D

[-]

thequirkynerdy1@reddit

Serious question: You want to see the stock market fall after years of amazing progress?

[-]

viziroth@reddit

I already approve of the idea, you don't need to sell me more

[-]

Artsy_traveller_82@reddit

My only problem with this is legitimate copyright holders are vulnerable to their work being emulated by AI without their permission. All of a sudden you have a novel out there that is substantially my novel but because it’s AI everyone can download it, copy it, or publish it royalties free.

[-]

Akangka@reddit

I don't think it's both enough and actually legal.

First, people can just separate the AI generated part from the entire project. Then you can keep the AI generated part public domain and the rest of the project copyrighted.

Second, that would violate the license of images it was trained from. For example, a CC-BY-SA image requires the people that trains AI on it to keep the license, because it counts as derivative works. Not to mention lots of images that straight up cannot be legally used as an AI training material.

[-]

Vivian-Midnight@reddit

Rule 6: Not crazy enough.

[-]

Odd_Blackberry_1089@reddit (OP)

Id say it's crazy enough because it wouldn't work

[-]

Le_Doctor_Bones@reddit

I'd say it isn't crazy enough because, as others have said, it is already how the law works.

[-]

drplokta@reddit

Human writers and artists also learn their craft from the work of other writers and artists without permission or (in most cases) payment. Should everything that humans create also be in the public domain?

[-]

Dave_A480@reddit

Then there would be AI - as like anything else, the entire reason you do a thing - especially one as expensive to operate as AI - is profit.

Further, why should an AI model be open-sourced simply because the training data is? The actual model itself is an original work - and unless it uses GPL code in a way that triggers the 'viral' features of the GPL, it should *not* have to be open-source.

[-]

Superseaslug@reddit

It is, for the most part. If I ask chatGPT for an image of a sandwich, while I technically own the image, I can't copyright it, so realistically anyone can use it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

[-]

paulohare@reddit

You can still make money off of something that is public domain. This doesn't make any sense

[-]

Known-Archer3259@reddit

Nationalize the ai industry

[-]

Allofron_Mastiga@reddit

The non profit part I especially like, all of this makes so much sense that it matches up with court rulings about AI creations not being copyrightable

[-]

JamponyForever@reddit

r/actuallyprettyreasonibleideas

[-]

green_meklar@reddit

That's kinda presupposing that copyrights and patents should still exist for human-invented stuff.

They shouldn't. They're a bad idea and always have been. We don't need artificial scarcity, there's plenty of natural scarcity.

[-]

Scrangdorber@reddit

I believe this is actually already the case in the US?

[-]

Hopeful_Ad_7719@reddit

>After all, AI is trained off of everyone and everything, it's only fair that everyone owns stuff generated by it.

So, you're okay with AI stealing other's people art, then giving it away for free? Have you asked an artist what they think of this plan.

[-]

Odd_Blackberry_1089@reddit (OP)

I'd rather have that than it being used for profit

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

This will never work. People are trained from and take influence from other people all the time, and a properly trained generative model is no different (as much as people would like to think otherwise).

[-]

Express-Day5234@reddit

This is like saying because we accept companies hiring people to steal creative ideas from other people we should accept companies using AI instead to steal from other people. That doesn’t follow at all.

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

Well we’re not talking about the theft of ideas, we’re talking about drawing on influence from existing ideas. That’s what will be argued against this reasoning. And that happens all the time, which is why genres of music, movies, art styles, etc. exist.

[-]

Express-Day5234@reddit

Again, just because we accept other people doing this doesn’t mean we have to accept AI doing this. Society can decide differently.

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

Yes. That’s what I said.

[-]

Hold-Professional@reddit

Chat, found a clanker lover.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

Definitely not a clanker lover by any means, just a clanker-understander.

[-]

mrBreadBird@reddit

A generative model has no sense of when the work it creates is too close to the inspiration. An artist painting a near exact copy of an existing painting would be an issue AI or not.

[-]

SkyGuy5799@reddit

That can be programed into the models, unfortunately

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

Not “into” the model, but external to the model, as a processing layer external to it.

[-]

KernelPanic-42@reddit

That’s why I said “properly trained.” This is called over training/fitting and is effectively memorization and reproduction, which nobody wants when the goal is to learn abstract generalizations.

[-]

LordMoose99@reddit

I could see what they create being in the public domain (though that is a legally tricky issue as other programs allow you to keep copyright if you use it, like photoshop's AI stuff), but the actual models themselves being in the public domain would basically mean the industry collapses.

But I guess if your actual mutative is to destroy the AI industry, this would be one way to do it without saying the obvious out loud.

[-]

Markimoss@reddit

that's already the case

[-]

Try4se@reddit

That'd be cool if everything they were trained off of was in the public domain. I'd probably use it if that were the case.

[-]

CuntryMusicStar@reddit

I disagree. Groups spend tons of money to develop the model. They should be able to charge you to use said model.

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

You should re-read the post.

[-]

CuntryMusicStar@reddit

I did?

40 years ago a dictionary or an encyclopedia was a book or series of books that contained public information that a group of people compiled. People bought the books to have the information they contained readily available.

AI is public information compiled in a way that makes it easy to access. The effort it takes to compile that information has value. Kind of how it took to effort to write a dictionary or encyclopedia.

[-]

BaronBoar@reddit

There was nothing in the original post that said that they wouldn't be able to charge for people to use their service or allow the creators make money from their effort.
AI has a place in our world and it should be a public good, not a destructive force. So yes, using it like a dictionary is great. (But I do wish every AI service I've had shoved at me would stop lying randomly.)

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]