Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.
You can argue about ethics separately but if you’re going to invoke copyright then that’s a question of law, not ethics.
Does that matter? There have been several major court cases at this point that have established that training an AI is fair use.
That’s not reflected in the music billboards or the traffic going to various AI providers.
Or, it’s a way to generate songs about whatever topic or in whatever style that you personally are interested in. That’s what I use it for.
Philosophically, people can always come up with differences to fret about. Philosophers have argued for millennia about things that are impossible to ever detect empirically.
Practically, no.
AI tools can be trained and run locally by individuals, not just by corporations.
Depends how well you fight against the prospect.
There are plenty of movies where the CGI is creating elements that could well be real, like people or buildings. There was a movie recently where rather than go through the legal hassle of having live horses on set they just CGIed every last shot that contained a horse, even if they were just standing around in the background. You’ve no doubt watched plenty of CGI imagery that you had no idea was CGI. It looked good, that was all.
Whether it’s a “legitimate complaint” is the community-dependent thing, I guess. Check the rules of the communities they’re posting in. The instance being used by the bot account may also have rules about how people can use accounts there, I’m not sure how to report an account to their home instance but that seems like the sort of thing that should exist.
What do you mean, “should they be allowed to report?” The report button works regardless of what kind of account you’re reporting.
If you mean “should the accounts be allowed”, then that’s entirely up to the communities and the instances involved. Some may be fine with them, others might not, it’s not anything that can be decided globally.
If you’re in a community that’s allowing accounts you don’t want to see then block the account.
When you watch a movie with computer-generated special effects, are you happy watching a lie?
The fact that people were so psychologically subjugated to having to work in exchange for livelihood that when the prospect came along to not need that any more they fought against it.
If 97% of listeners can’t tell the difference then I’m not sure the point of quibbling the definition.
Unless you enjoy music regardless of whether it’s AI generated, in which case the future’s going to have way more options.
It’s also going to make it really easy to take down the content you don’t like, just accuse it of being AI and watch the witch hunting roll in. I’ve seen plenty of examples of traditional artists getting accused of using AI in other forums, I don’t imagine this will be any different.
So “I know it when I see it” rules, rather than anything rigorously defined.
Assuming this gets any traction at all the witch hunts will be rampant.
It’s a complex tapestry. They hate Jews in relation to Christians. They hate poor people in relation to first-world nations like Israel. And they hate Muslims in relation to everyone else (aside from a few of the really rich ones, I guess). So no wonder it gets a bit tangled for them.
Turns out a lot of people like how it sounds.
Chatting with fictional characters via AI is nothing new.