Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

    • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even in the most generous terms, Marxism isn’t a promise that you will have every desire fulfilled. So I don’t really know why you said that.

      In the system we have where art is commodified there are barriers to entry. Class determines access to training and tools used to make orriginal images of value as does physical and mental ability. Using technology to overcome those barriers is a good thing. Being against tech that provides the marginalized with access to things because it will “take artist’s jobs” is Ludditist and classist because it is upholding the petty bourgeois artists and keeping out the unwashed masses of the neurodivergent, untrained and physically disabled.

      In the legal case referenced the person who gained the copyright and won the case was an individual. It was not the AI developer. If any thing it is a case to use that a person using AI is the copyright owner and not a corporation who develops the tool.

      The issues you raise are valid but they are issues with capitalism and not with the tech. AI is a tool and capitalists have always tried to use tools to further exploit people. that doesn’t mean we should abandon all tools.