People in security and computing have been saying for years - there's no cloud. There's just someone else's computer.
Right now, there's no AI. There's just someone else's work.
Stop calling generative text and image programs AI. It's inaccurate and insulting. They are just the evolution of corporate creative theft that's been going on as long as media corporations have existed.
I think the @fsfe should produce a sticker with this on. They already have one about the cloud.
@zleap @ianrosewrites @fsfe FSF is general is not in favour of extending copyright.
@webshinra @ianrosewrites @fsfe
I was thinking about what the post said about AI being someone elses work, if the AI just goes off and finds content from others, has the actual AI written it.
These stickers / statements are good to get people thinking / talking about the topic.
We are in danger of perhaps being seduced by the technology, so just having a discussion is a good thing.
@zleap @ianrosewrites @fsfe The question was present when microsoft Copilot show very strong memorization phenomena (as thus was outputing copyrighted GPL material). Having a software extract knowledge from GPL code is not incompatible with GPL (or even AGPL).
Keeping in mind that the whole GPL goal was to subvert copyright into protecting the user instead from the creator's power, it would be a bit strange to discourage knowledge sharing troughs machine learning to «protect» authors.
@zleap @ianrosewrites @fsfe What is "written"? Generative system is not new, would someone ask if the Spelunky levels generator actually level-design the level it generate?
Does the system generate original content combining concept extracted from large text bases? yes. Does it «write» anything; not really, as art is a social act, and the system don't do anything by itself and just respond to command.
@webshinra @ianrosewrites @fsfe
I am sure there has also been discussions with regard to how the AI gets code or what happens when the AI finds or uses GPL code.