We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nah, that’s like saying capitalism is a scam.

      Copyright and capitalism in general is fine. It’s when billion dollar corporations use political donations to control regulations

      Like, imagine a year after Hangover came out. 20 production companies all released Hangover 2.

      Imagine it was a movie by a small Indie studio so a big studio paid off the original actors to be in their knockoff.

      Or an animated movie that used the same digital assets.

      We need some copyright protection, just not a never ending system

      • Odelay42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        10 months ago

        Capitalism is a scam.

        It’s an unsustainable system predicted on infinite growth that necessitates unconscionable inequality.

        • PaperDevil@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          I know it is popular to say that infinite growth is a requirement of capitalistic systems. First of all a proof is never provided. Secondly, Japan might be a counter example, where the GDP has stagnanted for two decades.

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

          You dropped the “unregulated”.

          Socialism is still capitalism. It’s just regulated and we use taxes to fund social programs.

          And the second sentence is more caused by not taxing stock trades. If we had a tax that decreases the longer a stock is held, it would prioritize long term investment and companies would care about more than the next months earnings.

          All shit that can be solved with common sense regulations.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Socialism is still capitalism. It’s just regulated and we use taxes to fund social programs.

            Tell me you don’t know the definition of socialism without telling me you don’t know the definition of socialism.

            While Socialism may not be against Free Markets, Capitalism /= Socialism.

            Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production.

            So like in a factory, everyone employed there also has ownership stake in the company, and they can vote on leadership internally. Instead of relying on government regulations to be able to have things like paid lunches and guaranteed sick days, instead they can come to collective agreement on those things, with the vote of every worker/owner. They can still sell products on a free market, but the “capital” part of the equation has been removed.

            In capitalism, in a factory, the factory has been purchased by a Capitalist who, by definition, is someone with a lot of Capital (money/wealth) and they bought the factory whole with the capital. Now, they are going to hire workers with the capital as well, and the workers have to follow any and all their rules, like a little fiefdom of a dictatorship and nobody gets an opportunity to vote on leadership. They have no control over pay, working conditions, or much else, and they rely on the Government to enforce it otherwise.

            Socialism really doesn’t have anything to do with government regulation, taxation, or social safety nets.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              So like in a factory, everyone employed there also has ownership stake in the company,

              Nope.

              That’s not socialism.

              In socialism there’s still private ownership of companies.

              • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Maybe you’re specifically thinking of Communist Russia which allowed for small businesses to have private ownership, or perhaps you’re thinking of Anarcho-Communism?

                But the reality is, private ownership is the antithesis of collective ownership, so most socialists aren’t really on board with that.

                Via Wikipedia, which makes the point numerous times, with a plethora of scholarly references:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

                Socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue—but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With no need for capital accumulation and a class of owners, private property in the means of production is perceived as being an outdated form of economic organisation that should be replaced by a free association of individuals based on public or common ownership of these socialised assets. Private ownership imposes constraints on planning, leading to uncoordinated economic decisions that result in business fluctuations, unemployment and a tremendous waste of material resources during crisis of overproduction.

                But don’t worry, I fully expect a response that keeps arguing the same thing with no evidence to support it. That’s what I usually get here, it’s like the world has become illiterate.

                • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

                  Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms including: public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. No single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, but social ownership is the common element. Traditionally, socialism is on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

                  to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Why do all the accounts with “commie” in the name have no idea about any economic systems?

              I don’t think any of them actually support communism either, it’s just weird I block so many and they always keep showing up

          • Odelay42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m not aware of any common sense regulations that take precedence over corporate profits, but keep up the good fight I guess.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              If we had a tax that decreases the longer a stock is held, it would prioritize long term investment and companies would care about more than the next months earnings.

              Did you miss that?

              I know starting a new paragraph for each sentence helps more people understand because they tend to skip paragraphs, but my comment was only 6 sentences

              I figured two sentences a paragraph wasn’t too much.

              • Odelay42@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I didn’t miss it.

                You misunderstood my comment. These regulations you’re talking about either don’t exist or they are ineffective, because we are suffering the greatest economic inequality in history while corporate profits are at an all time high.

                But good luck, I hope you become super rich doing business so you don’t have to suffer with the rest of humanity. Have fun buying clean water tokens in a couple decades!

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  If they were already in effect, we wouldn’t need them because they already existed…

                  When we have them corporations pay lots of money to politicians to convince them we don’t need them because they’re working.

                  So when someone says we need regulations, it’s a pretty safe bet the regulations theyre talking about don’t exist yet, and they’re saying they should…

                  You can tell that’s what they mean, because it’s literally what they’re saying.

                  At least most of the time most people can.

                  I’m not sure why you keep not getting this and acting like you’re over replying. Then replying again.

                  Blocking is easier, it’s what I do when people don’t understand basic stuff while having an attitude about it.

                  Let me show you an example.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Those are fundamental features of the current system. If you want to suggest a copyright system that does protect smaller creators from bad actors but doesn’t allow the mega-corps to bully and control everyone, then feel free. But until such a system is implemented it see no reason to defend the current one which is actively harmful to the vast majority of creators.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s the system that was implemented…

          It worked fine until corporations realized both parties like money. Which didn’t take long.

          And I just said the current situation isn’t good…

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I can’t believe all the simping for copyright that’s come out of AI. What the fuck happened to the internet? On a place like lemmy no less.

      • FreeFacts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        People are smart enough to understand the difference between someone copying for personal use and a billion dollar corporation copying to generate millions while laying off all the creative people. The latter is what these non-open-source AI companies are enabling - for profit too.