this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
542 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

70461 readers
4463 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
  • He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
  • Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 26 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Then it should die.

This is like saying "if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die." Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 days ago

Cool, so I'll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.

Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I'll just assume it's ok.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 days ago

Great, let's do that.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago

I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 186 points 4 days ago (17 children)

If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Flickerby@lemm.ee 46 points 3 days ago (9 children)

If your industry can't exist without theft then your industry doesn't deserve to exist, pretty simple.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

oh noes

Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.

You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You're gonna lose your billions in investment if you can't plaigerize content?....fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.

Assholes

[–] Flukas88@feddit.it 26 points 3 days ago

I'm ok with "ai" dying

[–] Zanshi@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago
[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.

Fucking rapist mentaility right there.

[–] Tobberone@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

My thought exactly. If consent isn't needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?

This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.

[–] Benchamoneh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business.

Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?

[–] dumbpotato@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Rules for thee, not for me.

I thought copyright and patent laws were supposed to protect the little guy? Looks like as soon as they protect the little guy from big business, they stop mattering.

It's almost like, they weren't there to protect the little guy which is why big businesses never fought back against them.

I guess the useful idiots were wrong, again. Color me not-surprised.

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would "Implausible" for me to do so.

[–] MiyamotoKnows@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.

[–] Susurrus@lemm.ee 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Same thing for most of billionaires' income sources.

"Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry]."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Honestly not a bad thing, I mean you're not going to OpenSource your AI so this is a good alternative

[–] technomad@slrpnk.net 85 points 4 days ago

Good, then it should die

[–] Soapbox1858@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago
[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 61 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 4 days ago

That's the only correct take

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

correction: will kill people's attempts to make billions out of other people's art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.

Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don't need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 50 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

Indeed. Simply that. If a business is not sustainable without breaking the law, it is not a business, it's a criminal organisation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (11 children)

If you're giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn't seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago

if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.

[–] Brotha_Jaufrey@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Good, I think it should be killed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mustbe3to20signs@feddit.org 55 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The audacity... If our technology isn't allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Oh, so it'd be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And not asking for it will kill whatever remains of the creative industries.

What do you want, a few years of ai slop followed by the more or less rapid decline of the internet (as it is overwhelmed with model collapse creative works and untrustable content) that will afford the likes of Clegg (in his role of 'meta' executive) a huge payout, or creative people having any hope of a sustained ability to make a living?

I know what I would prefer and I also know what is most likely going to happen. This is the result of decades of neo-liberal fossil-fuel-powered capitalism.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago

So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s

Is this going in for a vote? Where do I vote?

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 15 points 3 days ago
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

So… what’s the down side to this bill?

[–] DJDarren@sopuli.xyz 25 points 4 days ago

Fuck Nick Clegg. Fuck that guy into the fucking sun.

Back in 2010 he managed to surf a wave of genuine optimism from young British voters who wanted something less shit, and found himself in a position where he could have brought about some genuine change for the better.

Instead that cunt hitched his wagon to the fucking Tories, who straight away announced an increase to university tuition fees. And who then went on to spend 15 years raping and pillaging the country like only fucking Tories can.

So yeah, fuck Nick Clegg.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

Bank robbers say laws against bank robbery will kill bank robbery.

[–] misterdoctor@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago
[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

Sounds like a plan!

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 4 days ago

Pure entitlement mindset.

If your business is not able to stay afloat while providing fair compensation to those whose labor is used, whether employee, co-owner, or third-party, you are not entitled to keep running it. Society doesn't have a duty to prop up wealthy thieves.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Let's hope it does.

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 11 points 3 days ago

Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.

load more comments
view more: next ›