• 0 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • If you’re considering life360, you’ve already lost the privacy game.

    There are different levels of privacy to consider.

    Apps: limit number of apps or essential only. Many have built-in trackers for developer kickbacks. Even developers don’t know the full extent of how the data is used.

    Device settings: harden the phone by checking all the privacy settings. Install an ad/tracker blocking VPN app.

    Evesdroppers: Your phone is a radio transmitter. Companies know this. Your mobile company may have privacy settings and track phones independently of any device settings or app. Also, bluetooth loggers are placed around high traffic areas, such as stores, to record precise location and movement. Disabling wifi, Bluetooth, or Mobile may be considered depending on level of privacy paranoia*.

    There may be some privacy respecting tracking options (well, as a family anyway) over on the selfhosted lemmy community if you’re ready to go down that rabbit hole.

    •It’s not paranoia if it’s real.






  • The first article has some good points taken very literally. I see how they arrive at some conclusions. They break it down step by step very well. Copyright is merky as hell, I’ll give them that, but the final generated product is what’s important in court.

    The second paper, while well written, is more of a press piece. But they do touch on one important part relevant to this conversation:

    The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

    This is important because a prompt “create a picture of ____ in the style of _____” can absolutely generate output from specific sampled copyright material, which courts have required royalty payments in the past. An LLM can also sample a voice of a voice actor so accurately as to be confused with the real thing. There have been Union strikes over this.

    All in all, this is new territory, part of the fun of evolving laws. If you remove the generative part of AI, would that be enough?



  • Wow, EFF. You’ve been a beacon of light in countless fights, but I did a doubletake on this article. Are you really implying that simply being on the internet is subject to business free-for-all?

    I had to have read that wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of any creative business to track and audit all copyrighted works used in deliverables.

    AI, being the business of scooping up massive amounts of data, should absolutely have some sort of metadata log referencing copyrighted works. This is not the burden of small business, but standard practice for AI.

    *AI is like reading and should be fair use

    No, it certainly is not. Creating a compressed efficient database for search engines to reference and point users is fair use. Using that database to generate new work is not. AI is inherently generative.





  • Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

    You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.

    What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.

    That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.