mechoman444

Thank you for the fact check. Lemmy has a serious issue with bogus sensationalized headlines with no context offered.

I mean, that’s certainly your interpretation. An incorrect one, in my opinion, but nevertheless, you’re entitled to it.

More importantly, it’s completely beside the point of what I was trying to communicate and has very little relevance to the actual discussion.

It doesn’t matter who creates the media, so long as the result is novel. If I ask an LLM to generate an image of a flower, and that image has never existed before, then it is, by definition, something new. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to call it art. That’s your prerogative. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and art is ultimately a subjective designation. I can call something art just as easily as you can refuse to.

And, unfortunately, for both of us, what either of us personally considers art has absolutely no bearing on the novelty, existence, or validity of the resulting creation. Our personal opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant to those questions.

As long as we’re in agreement.

I don’t care what Lemmy is overwhelmingly for or against. At all. I’m going to call out bandwagon bullshit every time I see it for as long as I feel like doing it.

Once again. You should go to that instance and do something about it.

And say what you want about “my opinion” it is correct.

I am on the right platform, and I’ll use it whenever and however I see fit, within the TOS I agreed to when I created my account.

Maybe you should run off to Reddit, where you can make some kind of moral stand against the things you disagree with, rather than running around here in your own little yes-man echo chamber.

But they’re not selling that content. I cannot begin to tell you how often I encounter this exact line of reasoning.

If a painter creates an original painting inspired by Rembrandt, Rembrandt’s estate doesn’t receive royalties simply because his work served as inspiration.

LLMs and other AI models generate novel content. They don’t simply copy established works and regurgitate them verbatim. The training process allows these models to identify patterns, relationships, and structures in enormous datasets, which they then use to generate new material.

As usual, much of the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform comes from a place of absolute ignorance regarding how these models actually work, how they function, and how they’re trained.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they’re not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)

Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They’re not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.

And that’s the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn’t. You can’t argue that it’s free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they’re using it for a different purpose. That’s not how public access works.

So, they’re not stealing anything under the assumption we’re making here. To answer your original question, no, I don’t have an issue with them stealing the internet.

Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there’s a lot of really good open source out there.

Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.

Why do people not know what plagiarism means.

Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?

I… Completely agree and my comment wasn’t meant for you. You have no idea how often I encounter people that simply do not understand or know exactly what these llms do and they simply dislike them for the sake of being part of the bandwagon, I am generally irritated by these people. The ones that say out loud that they hate everything that AI does and then when it does something generally useful and they don’t hate that one particular thing. It’s extremely two-faced and inconsistent and absolutely bothers me.

I will admit that it is possible I need to make my position a little clearer. The vast majority of comments on this platform are overwhelmingly critical of AI in other posts, yet many of those same people were praising it when it was being used to decompile video games and jailbreak the PS5.

I am simply, once again, pointing out the two-faced nature of this platform. My gripe, if you will, is consistency. If you hate AI, then hate it for everything it does, including the things that might actually be beneficial. It’s convenient to play both sides and act as a devil’s advocate when it suits your position, but ultimately, that’s a useless and self-defeating stance.

If you’re going to take a centrist position on AI, then do that. Praise it where it deserves praise and criticize it where it deserves criticism. But don’t turn around and say you hate everything about AI in one breath, only to make an exception when it happens to serve your interests.

Your first comment, accusing me of treating the comment section as one unified opinion, is a straw man. It is significantly easier to defend an argument when you change it entirely, rather than address what I actually said. I was arguably addressing the comment section as a collective, not suggesting that every individual held the exact same opinion. Your response demonstrates that you either misunderstand or are misusing the term logical fallacy.

Your second statement is pure nonsense for the same reason. You clearly don’t understand what a false dichotomy is. I didn’t introduce a dichotomy or present two mutually exclusive positions. I simply asked a question: which is it?

Please stop throwing around logical fallacies when you don’t understand what they mean. It derails the conversation entirely. Instead of addressing the substance of my argument, you’ve changed the discussion into an argument about whether I understand logical fallacies. Worse, you’ve completely avoided addressing the actual point I was making. That’s precisely the kind of diversion that prevents any meaningful discussion.

But they’re not. Big corporations aren’t decompiling games, modifying them, and then distributing them for free. They’re not even doing it for profit.

In a grand act of irony, they stopped potential copyright infringement involving the very games being decompiled and redistributed.

My complaint, and the point I’m calling out, is that people on this platform will praise technology when it’s convenient for them, only to throw it under the bus when it becomes convenient to do so. Even when, in this particular instance, the technology provider technically did the right thing by putting a stop to the activity. Although, no doubt, this was prompted by pressure from Sony, Rockstar, and other concerned parties.

Yet another absolutely fascinating comment section. Let me try to understand what is happening here.

Are some of you upset because Claude can no longer do this? Were you perfectly happy with AI being used to decompile games and circumvent Sony’s PlayStation ecosystem when it was being used to stick it to a major corporation? But now that Anthropic has decided to prohibit this particular use of its technology, suddenly AI is terrible again? Suddenly it devalues human labor, which, incidentally, isn’t really what is happening here. In many instances, it eliminates the need for that labor altogether.

Then there are those arguing that only AI companies should be allowed to do these things, rather than independent individuals. Which is, quite frankly, a ridiculous argument. Companies have every right to dictate how their products and services are used, particularly when we’re talking about a proprietary service like Claude. You don’t own Claude. You don’t purchase the underlying technology. It belongs to Anthropic, and Anthropic gets to establish the terms under which it is made available.

So which is it? Do you oppose AI on principle, or do you only oppose it when it doesn’t serve your particular interests? Is AI the enemy of human creativity and labor, except when it’s being used to accomplish something you personally want?

I’d appreciate a little consistency from this user base. Surely that’s not too much to ask.

What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?

Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.

There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.

And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?

You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.

Right, and it will be severely overpriced and ultimately useless for anything beyond serving as a daily-use social media machine. Essentially, they want everything to become a glorified iPhone. Which, from a business perspective, makes sense. Apple’s business model revolves almost entirely around iPhone sales, so why wouldn’t they want to turn all of their other products into variations of the same thing?

I’m an atheist. Sometimes I come across the question of where I get my morality. I often refer to TNG in my mind. What would Picard do? He would ask his crew for information, assess the situation, and give orders.

So much of my right and wrong came from his portrayal of that character. Today is a black day.

This comment section is fascinating. Some people are arguing that they don’t need the technological bloat of a touchscreen on their laptops. Others are specifically arguing that Apple doesn’t need to add touchscreens to its laptops, despite the fact that Apple consumers have been asking for this feature for years.

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with having a touchscreen on a laptop. Six years ago, I bought an Acer laptop on sale at Costco, and it came with one. It has proven to be a genuinely useful feature, not some unnecessary gimmick or bloatware. You don’t have to use it, but having the option is certainly nice.

The primary issue, of course, is how late Apple is to the party. Apple has a long history of adopting existing technologies years after its competitors, then marketing them as though they’ve reinvented the wheel. While Apple certainly deserves credit for some of its innovations, particularly during its earlier years, the company’s reputation for innovation often seems to have more to do with its marketing than with being first to market.

Touchscreen laptops have existed for a very long time. Yet now that Apple is reportedly bringing the technology to its MacBooks, some people are acting as though it represents a revolutionary leap forward. It doesn’t. It’s an established feature that Apple is finally choosing to adopt.

The same argument applies to Apple’s rumored foldable iPhone. Foldable smartphones have been on the market for years, and the technology has matured considerably, even if issues such as the crease in the middle of the display remain. Apple entering the market might bring its own refinements, but it won’t be inventing the category.

The problem isn’t that Apple is adding unnecessary features. The problem is that the company has cultivated a brand culture in which ordinary product updates can be presented as groundbreaking innovations. Its exceptionally loyal customer base often seems willing to accept higher prices and fewer options simply because the product carries the Apple logo. And with the amount of competition in the technology market today, I find that level of brand loyalty difficult to justify.

In my opinion, consumers should stop rewarding Apple for charging premium prices while taking its time adopting features that competing manufacturers have offered for years. Lower the prices, deliver something genuinely compelling, and give people a real reason to upgrade beyond the logo and the ecosystem.

Or, better yet, bring back the iPod. I’d buy one of those in a heartbeat.

The Donald of America Lake Trump.