woa i didnt know it existed on lemmy. feel free to crosspost :D

mfw i drink too much beet juice :3

I think this could even be related to the idea of post-open source that Bruce Perens talked about. An organisation which helps its members handle the business-y parts of running large community projects. They could handle funding, legal representation, marketing and any other support that members may want. A large number of members would make it that much more effective as well.

The best outcome would be setting a precedent that allows FOSS organisations to send threatening letters to companies that violate the license. An individual dev maintaining a small library may theoretically be able to win a lawsuit, but practically? lmao good luck

If I understand correctly, this applies to users, not just contributors. As a user of the software you are entitled to a copy of the source code.

The title is the most accurate onomatopoeia I’ve ever seen in my life

Agreed. Even if technically it’s probably maybe fair use, it’s not in spirit. Taking Copilot as an example, it doesn’t matter if the training data was open source (and some of it most likely wasn’t), the AGPL is copyleft and people choose it to propogate free software. Even if the AI may or may not be in violation of the licence legally, it’s 100% not in the spirit of foss since the model is proprietary.

I wholeheartedly believe this too. There’s something so amazing about the feeling of creating things with your own hands and seeing what the rest of the world says about it. But the moment you rely on this to literally not starve, any unfairly advantaged competition becomes that much more dangerous.

I think the slew of flops at the box office is a sign that people are rejecting this. Putting aside what AI could do, right now everything that’s generated feels vapid in a sense, and I don’t think that’s entirely because it came from a machine. The creators were just that uninspired.

I’m personally happy that the film industry is struggling while works like Spiderverse and Helluva Boss and going against the status quo.

I mean, there’s a reason that Marvel/DC comics are nowhere near as popular as they used to be while manga gets several aisles at the bookstore.

It still hurts to see people around me lose motivation because of AI though.

Considering the amount of processing power needed to make a decent AI model, I’m pretty sure it’s already solely controlled by large companies. Plus, if it becomes legally required then people can’t exactly reject it.

In my personal opinion, I don’t think AI art is inherently bad and I’d put it on the same level as that particular style of soulless corporate art. I’m confident that people who actually care about the quality of whatever it is they’re making will commission real artists. And the existence of AI art wouldn’t take away the enjoyment of creating something with your own hands. But I’m not a professional artist so I think my opinion is irrelevant anyway. If actual artists have a problem with it, then it needs to be addressed.

While I mostly agree with you in that there’s no way most people would be on board with C2PA, it’s an entirely different matter if it becomes legally required. I don’t know how likely it is but it doesn’t seem impossible.

(Also the impersonation argument feels contrived to me. Just get your info from the source 4Head)

Well, it just bothers me that I know many people who still think art and other creative pursuits should be relegated to hobby status and I should get a “real” job. And the fact that AI is doing things that humans are supposedly meant to do for fun just doesn’t sit right with me.