This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I have never been worried about the advancement of technology. I am worried about the people that control the technology.
deleted
Was reading that and all I could think about was the silver orbs from Phantasm.
deleted
Yes Altman is definitely someone we need to keep an eye on to make sure he doesn't try to get a copyright assigned to OpenAI for everything their AIs create.
I got in an argument with someone recently where my point was ultimately: pushing STEM education is fantastic and useful, but we do society a disservice by not equally pushing humanities / social science, because STEM concepts applied without regard for social/societal cues is dangerous. I think that's what we're seeing right now with the AI boom.
Don't get me wrong, STEM is incredibly important. But advancing technology for the sake of advancing technology is a bad idea if we don't have the social wherewithal to handle the consequences.
I realize this may not have been your point; posting it anyway.
STEAM is better than STEM. The A is for Arts.
The US Supreme Court has been blocking fair use and ]ublic domain additions for a century now and is still going strong disregarding the public good.
We need to assure robust, legally untouchable, piracy assets that will assure culture will go on through the public no matter how much the state tries to lock it down. Not only for the sake of ~~bypassing enshittification~~ the flourishing of our public culture but the archival and preservation of historical content, since the market gives zero fucks about posterity.
The headline gives a bad first impression but I think the text itself has an interesting point. As it stands right now (in the US) the AI gatekeepers can't copyright any of their output. So each and every piece of generated media is one more piece added to the public domain pile. Most of it is worthless but if there's anything worth building on someone or someones can do that.
If copyright blocks it, simply use Generative AI to find a loophole. 😏
This reminds me a bit of a Charles Stross novel.
I'd rather artists get paid personally.
Does copyright pay artists? As it seems to me it pays copyright holders collecting them like trading cards and Artists getting paid is more a side effect.
Copyright concerns redistribution but if one gets paid a satisfied amount in a patron model (before production) you don't "need" copyright. For work that is copyrighted many consider a Creative Common license that permits redistribution.
If royalties are paid, in most cases the artist will get some. How much depends on the contract he signed. I agree it's not a great system. I'd like to see some direct licensing with the artist rather than what we have today, but something is still better than nothing.
