• LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    You cannot be an apologist unless there is a credible accusation to defend against.

    Disagreeing with people that cannot coherently decide why they are upset is a good thing.

    As for your comment, I agree that using art to train AI and then selling the result is a problem. Our legal framework needs to catch up on that. Personally, I do not see why it would not be copyright violation. That is clearly what it would be if a human did the exact same thing. A tool directed by a human does not seem so different from that. In my reading of copyright law, this misuse of AI may already be illegal.

    We just need a few court cases to sort that out.

    “I want the leisure time required to create art, instead of being fucking burned out from working multiple jobs and spending all my available free time doing chores.”

    So, fair enough. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with AI? It really waters down your other point ( addressed above ).

    If you are trying to agree with the OP concerning “laundry and dishes”, please think about your position. Those are two of the best examples for how technology has reduced time spent and effort expended on menial chores. I struggle to think of better ones. They also seem like prime candidates to be improved by adding AI to our existing mechanical devices.

    What could the actual complaint be here? At worst, you can assume that AI will not help you with laundry and dishes. Any less extreme position will be that it probably will. The same can be said for any other menial task I can think of in my day-to-day life.

    Sorry to be a rationality apologist but I am not going to line-up against totally misdirected outrage. Being mad does not make you right.