• MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Why do I feel like almost no artists are going to use this new Creative Commons license and would prefer the Supreme Court to rule on this case?

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because few artists use CC as-is, because they have a petit bourgeoise mindset and are largely cutthroat narcissists who only care about “making it”. I hope sincerely the breadline teaches them a lesson.

  • jlow (he / him)@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    we give, we take, we give again, and we are all in this together.

    No, the AI megacorps only steal and then make you pay to use their illegal and unethical services. How naive is this?

    • FatCrab@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      There are many open sourced locally executable free generative models available.

      • jlow (he / him)@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Oh, I didn’t know that. Models were people have actually actively consented to their data being used for it (not “Wikipedia is CC so it’s fine”)?

  • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    pearl clutchers never cared about whether artists prefer ubiquity over obscurity. I forsee a cc license that explicitly opts into model training, and the whiners unable to distinguish between that, endorsing all model training, or actual generated content. to them it will all be called slop.