Source (Bluesky)
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
177 points (90.0% liked)
Fuck AI
3761 readers
582 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A lot of images ingested while training AI have been taken without permission. Most obvious is the recent flux of studio ghibli style art, which openAI has admitted to using without permission.
Art is iterative so the concept that you need permission to use a style is ridiculous. Certainly Studio Ghibli did not invent that art style.
As I was saying "stealing" is bullshit because you are not depriving the originator of anything. What you are talking about is copyright infringement.
Personally I detest the whole concept of imaginary property. So your not going to convince me AI is bad because of it.
I think you'll find it is called stealing to copy something without permission, and copyright infringement can deprive the originator, like if someone copied the lyrics of a song someone else released 2 days back without credit. Modern copyright law is widely abused but that doesn't change the fact that taking art without permission is stealing, no matter what your personal definition is.
The stealing in the studio ghibli case is ingesting all of the studio ghibli art without paying them for it, and while outputting, clearly labeling it as studio ghibli style.
I think you are wrong.
Stealing requires depriving someone of their property.
If my daughter draws a character from Totoro she has done nothing wrong. She has not stolen anything. If my daughter draws a new character in the style of Totoro she has also not stolen anything.
What you are talking about is copyright infringement.
Let me ask you this. If OP was replaced by an artist from India who works for 1/10 the price would this all be suddenly okay?
No, it would not be. The problem this person is complaining about is not about AI. It is a much bigger problem that both of you fail to recognize.
I think you are wrong.
Those things might not be a problem for you. But they are for hundreds, thousands or millions of other people.
What are you even talking about. Please state what you think is the problem.
Mate, refer to the original post.
Mate, I already explained it is not stealing. When I said I think you are wrong about the definition of stealing I was being generous.
The definition of stealing is literally depriving someone else of property. This does not happen in copyright cases which are a civil matter rather than criminal matter.
The OP is also wrong for the reasons I already pointed out. Those being that the reason they are losing their job is not because of AI but because they work for a shitty capitalist corporation.
As I alluded if his job would have been replaced by a foreigner who was paid far less he would also not be okay with it and his comic would likely look very racist.
This is because the problem is not AI in this situation. Do you have an opinion on this?
That the original post covers more than stealing and losing job.
That would be a no then. Cheers!
I’m just not interested in your bad faith argument. It sounds like you think AI is good. It isn’t, for every reason in the original post and more.
That’s the end of it pretty much. This is a bad technology that is party of the way humanity keeps trying to destroy ourselves. Nothing that you love about AI changes that.
No more. Bye.
This is such a sovereign citizen tier argument. "Officer, I wasn't driving, I was travelling."
"In law, "stealing" generally refers to the act of taking someone else's property without their consent and with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. "
Clearly you are full of it. That is why copyright is a civil and not criminal matter.
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/when-stealing-isnt-stealing-theft-law-21st-century
At any rate, I get it. You are probably some corporate bootlicker who thinks copyright protects the artist.
Let's end I.P. law and burn down the datacenters. Since you hate I.P. so much, I assume this is the easiest offer in the world to you.
Oh please, if that was the truth then AI proves it wouldn't happen. After all they have pretty much violated the copyright of every artist on earth without so much as a slap on the wrist.
I get it, you don't like AI. I don't like how we are using these Large Language Models speculations to create a boom/bust economic cycle. This isn't even the worst of it as it is also being used by authoritarian governments to target people. To top it off it is just a general buzz word businesses are using to rip off consumers.
There are a lot more negative things as well. What OP is upset about though is a problem with business in general. If you are going to hate on AI at least hate it for real reasons.
Peter Thiel, and his incestuous coven of vampires, have funded this machine's creation to replace newspaper comic artists. Do you disagree? That's what it did.
Or, do you think I don't also have criticisms of capitalism.
Yes, I do disagree. As I pointed out this is the result of working for a shitty corporation.
Are all newspapers firing all artists? No, not at all.
There are great reasons not to like AI. Violations to copyright and bad business practices using at as an excuse to lay off staff are not the reasons. It is a red hearing.
I don't know what you think of capitalism. You could let me know if you like.
Yes, of course, what we need are good billionaires.
Anyone can choose not to fire a gun---I don't want the gun in the room. If you want the gun for other reasons, then build it to fire blanks.
Is this at all because: 1) it is wildly unpopular, 2) it is, for now, kind of shit at its job.