this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
235 points (98.4% liked)

Actually Infuriating

598 readers
51 users here now

Community Rules:

Be CivilPlease treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.

Content should be actually infuriatingPolitics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.

Mark NSFW/NSFL postsPlease mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.

Keep it Legal and MoralNo promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.

Partner Communities

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

But piracy is a crime...

EDIT: This guy is a clown

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 103 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So it's only piracy when poor people do it?

[–] jyl@sopuli.xyz 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Poor people aren't "running an industry"

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

Napster was…but it wasn’t owned by rich people and didn’t benefit rich people so it was targeted.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 62 points 3 days ago

Sounds okay to me. Fuck the AI industry.

[–] jyl@sopuli.xyz 54 points 3 days ago

Asking banks for permission would kill the robbery imdustry.

[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 51 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Then let AI die. What has it done, other than make us stupider?

[–] natecox@programming.dev 27 points 3 days ago

Hey now, be fair; It’s guzzled down all of our water too.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago

Kill the artist industry. Oh yeah, rich cunts in England think art isn't a real career

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I said this in another thread about this piece so I’m gonna paste it here again. Sorry those of you who maybe saw it lol:

This is the same shit sites like YouTube use to get out of being accountable for anything they do. “We are too big. It is unreasonable to ask us to follow the law. So our benchmark of what a good faith attempt should suffice.”

Motherfucker then don’t be so big! If I’m a real estate developer and my building collapses killing 100 people, I can’t go “my empire is too big. It is unreasonable to expect me to follow all the various codes and ordinances designed to keep people safe.“

[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Unless you're friends with the right people.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mean yes to some extent, but at the end of the day, tech moguls get a lot more latitude for ruinin lives than executives in a lot of other industries. How many stories have we read of fake nudes of children being spread around schools? AI getting people to commit suicide? Bigoted bots?

We’ve got Teslas literally running over people in the street and nothing fucking happens.

[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, this world is a messed up place.

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Isn't it true that historically when universities trained these things, they used their own data, "not randos on the internet" or "anything that wasn't nailed down" (random scraped copyrighted content).

GenAI could be ethical, it just, isn't, because corporations are assholes.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago

Then it deserves to die.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't actually kill AI, it would just kill any open source solution and create a monopoly for the handful of companies that either have all the data or can afford to pay for it.

There's like 5 publishing houses, 3 record companies and a couple of websites that "own" almost all training material.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol lmao

That's only if they want to try tonprofit off of it.

Free use still allows you to train your own AI.

And the tech would be better if nobody profited off of AI

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Copy left license would be the best scenario but I don't think that is what we are getting sadly. That being said, you need the big foundational models. The average individual cannot train their own AI from scratch.

[–] Soliae@lemm.ee 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

AI has brought nothing of value to the table. Just another grift.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

If anything, it's delgitimized the actually useful ML projects in medicine and data processing.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago
[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 days ago

Don't tempt me with a good time

[–] irq0@infosec.pub 20 points 3 days ago

You're saying that like it's a bad thing?

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 11 points 2 days ago

If it kills the ai industry thats fine. They can't survive in our current system with IP laws they shouldn't survive.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 14 points 3 days ago

Then it should die.

[–] PixelTron@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago

Nick Clegg can go fuck himself!

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

scribbles notes Oh good!

The solution presents itself!

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That is how I feel about banks and money

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

Dunno who this guy is, but he's either a techbro or doesnt know what hes talking about. It will kill LLM's and the art bots that work by stealing data, but thats not how all AI is trained. Make actual AI and not theft-bot and you wont have that problem.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 5 points 3 days ago
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago
[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

You mean how laws stop the theft industry, and the murder industry... Like they should

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago
[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Took a minute to figure out that this wasn't https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg 🙀

Edit: Okay turns out it is the nick the useless clegg i thought it was some namesake since the photo in article looked different to what i remember... Wow what a bastard...

[–] dehyzer@piefed.social 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...but it is that Nick Clegg

[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

What what?! 😦 Looks like i lived under a rock 🤯

[–] ratel@mander.xyz 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is, unfortunately.

As policy makers in the UK weigh how to regulate the AI industry, Nick Clegg, former UK deputy prime minister and former Meta executive, claimed a push for artist consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.

[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Oh wow 😯😳 okay i lived under a rock, did not see that happening 😞