this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
258 points (92.4% liked)

Fuck AI

7560 readers
1283 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.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This has also come up for generative AI with consistent result.

Problem in those cases is that they hinged upon the human passing through the non-human product without even claiming to have modified it. If human modification has been done, then that modification is subject to copyright. In the case of a composite of human and non-human origination, good luck extracting the non-human portion of the work to take advantage of that copyright opening.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes. My point was that the person's comparison is shit. That genAI's and human's output aren't the same.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I agree it is a crap comparison, just warning that even as the slop straight from the LLM is not copyrightable, blend in a little human touch up and it is "blessed" into being copyrighted. So it's of little consequence unless the operator just passes it through untouched or makes it somehow easy to identify and remove the human tweaks.

In terms of slopping up a rip off under the assumption that it would obviously be the same as the original slop operators starting point, AI companies in their defense have already stated that operators can violate copyright implicitly as they legally declared they aren't on the hook for any resultant infringement...

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

I wonder if their legal "protection" will work in court.

Intentionally absurd comparison: if I would host all the batman movies on a public website but make people agree to they are legally responsible for illegally downloading the movies, would I get away with that? I don't think so.

Consequently, how much distance does there need to be between illegal activity and the company/person facilitate that activity?