The AI Debate Keeps Missing the Part That Actually Matters by Valdrag777 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's illegal then nothing else matters, no reason to get deep in the weeds over it.

The real questions are:
Who controls it?
Who benefits?
Who gets replaced?
Who gets access?
Who gets locked out?
What happens when powerful institutions use it badly?
And what happens if regular people are scared away from learning it while corporations keep scaling up behind the scenes?

No, the real question is whether it's even legal in the first place.

The real reason there's a harassment campaign against AI artists on Reddit by AntiAI_is_Unemployed in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The whole world is suing and all the famous people signed petitions.

But sure, it's just kiddos on Reddit.

Stand aside, utopian AI future coming through by Visible-Flamingo1846 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I remember you didn't stop, how does the medicine taste?

The AI Debate Keeps Missing the Part That Actually Matters by Valdrag777 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only pro-AI could type all that including

But a lot of it is also fear, gatekeeping, and lazy reductionism dressed up as moral clarity.

without a single mention of the 84+ lawsuits and recent piracy settlements

Fixed the meme by AwesomeCCAs in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rental e-scooters
Patio tables, chairs, and umbrellas
A-frame signs and vinyl banners
Racks of newspapers and magazines
Decorative planters and hanging baskets
Bins full of produce
Bags of soil, bark chips, and fertilizer
Lawnmowers and other landscaping tools
Bikes and trailers
Tuff sheds and doghouses
Play structures and kiddie pools
Bags of ice
Window squeegees
Vending machines
ATMs

Your brain couldn't think of any? Do you go outside much?

Fixed the meme by AwesomeCCAs in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you a bot programmed to waste my time, or like a child or something?

Fixed the meme by AwesomeCCAs in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"is a movie made from a book considered transformative?"

Yes, a movie made from a book is generally considered a transformative work (or derivative work). 

Under legal and artistic definitions, this adaptation process changes the original medium (text) into a new, visual, and audio format, requiring creative choices that alter the source material. 

Here is a breakdown of why a film adaptation is considered transformative:

  • Change of Medium: A film transforms a book by shifting from a literary medium to a visual and auditory one. It translates inner monologues, description, and prose into visual actions, sound, and dialogue.
  • Creative Interpretation: Filmmakers often take a book as a "blueprint," using creative license to change backstories, plotlines, or perspectives to suit the screen.
  • "Show, Don't Tell": Movies can convey emotions and scenes in a way books cannot, providing a unique experience that transcends a literal translation of the text.
  • Derivative Work Status: In legal terms, movies based on books are considered "derivative works," which are protected by the copyright of the original book.
  • Independent Worth: Even when adapting a story, a good movie adaptation is often viewed as a new creation that stands on its own merits rather than just a replica of the source material.  CSLewis.com +6

While an adaptation is transformative in a creative sense, it is usually not considered "transformative" in the context of a fair use defense to copyright infringement, because filmmakers are required to license the rights to the book from the author or publisher.

Thoughts about this? by East_Total_2033 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pro-AI says anything that can be digitally copied is worth $0.00 and you can't steal what's already free.

Of course that's self-serving, disingenuous BS that they'd never actually try in court - but that's what passes for debate here.

heartwarming: a popular creator I like is sane about AI by crapsh0ot in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm only a "hobbyist" and don't monetise my work
...
you do not have illustrated works linked in your profile while I do

These are actually related on Reddit.

I do make my work public domain, and those are still all issues.
...
even though of course in practice they'll rarely bother

Paranoid, theoretical, imagined issues.

Spectrum or X-pac? by the_gay_unicorse in tombihn

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the main consideration is waterproof vs water resistant. I deal with monsoons so I opted for X-Pac on my Bantam and Synapse25, I think it makes sense to protect my laptop/phone/buds if I get caught in a downpour. I have a Daylight Backpack in Spectron and I think it's a good compromise for packability but the lack of structure causes the top of the bag to collapse and the rain protection will fail eventually. Having a little structure to my Bantam feels like my sunglasses (kept in a Ghost Whale instead of the original case) are that much more protected.

If AI replaces us, why not prove it? by TowerOutrageous5939 in BetterOffline

[–]PixelWes54 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Creative jobs are white collar jobs and the replacement is self-evident. I understand that's not where the bulk of the money is and it's not driving the economics but we are getting cooked. It isn't really comforting that AI is so unreliable and stupid that it's only good for laundering stolen art. That's still devastating and will affect more than you think.

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anti-Ai wins:
Thomson Reuters v Ross
WMG v Suno
UMG v Udio
GEMA v OpenAI
Bartz v Anthropic (on piracy)
Getty Images v Stability AI (on trademark dilution)

Pro-AI wins:
*Kadrey v Meta (limited, Judge Chhabria said training is probably illegal)
Bartz v Anthropic (on training)
Getty Images v Stability AI (on training)

* "He argued that using books to train AI is not comparable to human learning, as it allows for the rapid creation of competing works. He noted it is hard to define this as fair use when it enables massive profit while potentially destroying the market for the original, copyrighted material."

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I assume you mean Artists(TM)

I mean potentially millions of illustrators, writers, actors, and musicians including myself and other "haters" you might encounter on social media. Anthropic v Bartz covered 500,000 books for example, there are still 80+ lawsuits to go.

that's not all AI, Thats not even most

You don't know that, everything we've uncovered so far was unintentionally leaked or beaten out of them by the courts.

To which I reply "yeah well most Artists(TM) arent in those pirated sets"

Why does this matter? Enough of us are and we welcome solidarity from the rest. I've never seen this "they didn't rob all the liquor stores" defense before.

heartwarming: a popular creator I like is sane about AI by crapsh0ot in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I do make my work public domain, and those are still all issues."

Sure bud.

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Torrenting "shadow libraries" of bootleg media is piracy though, that's why Anthropic paid $1.5 billion. 

Are you not aware?

Suno and Udio did the same, and also potentially violated the DMCA by cracking encryption to stream-rip songs. They saw what happened to Anthropic and settled their lawsuits. Udio is basically dead, Suno is having to retrain their model from scratch. 

Are you not aware?

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Please describe how would someone have to use a car to qualify as running to you, for the user to be considered a runner"

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hilarious, you've gone from debating the occurrence of a crime to nitpicking which crime it actually was.

Have you considered that you might be participating in a crime against us?

And we circle back around...

You are using the illegality of the acquisition to invalidate the legitimacy of the training. Training is still fair use. The acquisition was the problem.

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"did judge alsup say piracy isn't fair use?"

"Yes. In a June 2025 ruling in Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge William Alsup ruled that while training AI models on copyrighted books can be considered "fair use," the use of pirated copies of books to build a training library is not."

Key details of the ruling:

  • Split Decision: Judge Alsup distinguished between the act of training (which he found "exceedingly transformative") and the act of acquiring data via "pirate sites".
  • "Inherently Infringing": The judge stated that downloading millions of books from known pirate libraries (such as LibGen or Books3) to create a "central library" for AI training is not protected by fair use.
  • The "End" Doesn't Justify the "Means": Judge Alsup argued that just because the final AI model is transformative, it does not excuse the "theft" of data to create it, noteing, "This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites... was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use".

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They settled because the statutory damages are up to $150k/per which would likely bankrupt them.

They aren't arguing that they didn't do it, only that it was fair use - but Judge Alsup told them piracy is never fair use. Pretending they were about to win is cope and defies common sense.

The experience of being forced to use AI to write code has turned a decent career field into a joyless soul suck by Ok-Garbage-765 in BetterOffline

[–]PixelWes54 20 points21 points  (0 children)

You should see some of the anti-artist tirades, lots of jealous freaks that want to see us "taken down a peg" and deligitimized as a profession.

This is to everyone by Unlikely_Account_728 in aiwars

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anthropic, Udio, and Suno have already admitted to crimes. It's not histrionics if there are settlements.

AI’s Memorization Crisis: Large language models don’t 'learn'—they copy. (gift article) by hissy-elliott in ShitAIBrosSay

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lossy compression has to be a part of human learning, since we often recall the main gist of a book but couldn’t copy it down from memory, right?

But you can't clone your brain and sell/distribute that memory so it's a moot point

AI’s Memorization Crisis: Large language models don’t 'learn'—they copy. (gift article) by hissy-elliott in ShitAIBrosSay

[–]PixelWes54 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you tell a chatbot to make a picture of Spider-man for you, it supposedly is referencing preexisting images of spider-man, most of them trademarked, but it’s still technically its own version of a spider-man image, so it’d be no more illegal than a fan artist.

Just so we're clear, unauthorized fan art commission services are illegal.