I’m open to feedback.

Yeah, you make really good points, but we get also get the kind of bad faith actor that browses all and downvote community content whenever they see it.

You don’t have to like anything, but consistent downvoting like this without any other kind of participation is indistinguishable from targeted downvote harassment, and isn’t consistent with your claims of blocking.

I’m a moderator on !stable_diffusion_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com, where you’ve never upvoted once, but you have downvoted multiple posts over months instead of blocking the community. This down-ranks submissions, adversely affecting the visibility of the community for subscribers, which is why you were banned.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28218497

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35031819

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/38704142

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/44766239

It’s crazy to see Rodneyck come up in this. I banned that account when it showed up to one of the communities I’m moderating 18 days ago and dropped five downvotes in quick succession. Something lemvotes helped me identify quickly.

Yeah, I don’t like any of that. Thanks for the explanation.

I don’t know much about Piefed. What anti-features are you talking about?

Record them anyway. There’ll be more ways to de-anonymize them in the future.

This is definitely the type that grants wishes.

But the people making money off of all of that are mad now, hence this article.

It’s doing extra work and allowing other people to dictate how we use our space, for people that are going to break the rules anyway.

!lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com has been running on this philosophy for ten months now. The sidebar even says:

Our community has bots making regular posts showcasing best content from communities in given categories to help promote them. Each category is assigned to it’s own bot to allow users blocking posts from unwanted categories and tailor the feed for their preferences without the need to block the whole community. Here’s the current list of bot accounts:

Yet look at all of Best_of_ai_bot’s posts. Immediately and heavily downvoted every time. The people doing this won’t care, and use the tags to target content.

It’s been going on for a while now on !lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com. The sidebar even says:

Our community has bots making regular posts showcasing best content from communities in given categories to help promote them. Each category is assigned to it’s own bot to allow users blocking posts from unwanted categories and tailor the feed for their preferences without the need to block the whole community. Here’s the current list of bot accounts:

I’m not sure how much clearly marked posts are going to help the problem. I feel like the people browsing through all are targeting the content and won’t ever see the sidebar.

You can’t be sued over or copyright styles. Studio Ponoc is made up of ex-Ghibli staff, and they have been releasing moves for a while. Stop spreading misinformation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16369708/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15054592/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8223844/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6336356/

The dream is dead.

Did someone dare you to do it?

So you don’t interact with AI stuff outside of that? Have you seen any cool research papers or messed with any local models recently? Getting a bit of experience with the stuff can help you better inform people and see through the more bogus headlines.

It definitely seems that way depending on what media you choose to consume. You should try to balance the doomer scroll with actual research and open source news.

Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use

You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.

Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free.

I agree

I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.

But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.

But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.

AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers like these only benefit the ultra-wealthy and will end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.

Didn’t this get taken down off Mangadex in the last crusade?