InternetPerson

It is necessary to employ a method which enables the training procedure to distinguish copyrighted material. In the "dumbest" case, some humans will have to label it.

Just because you've edited a comment, doesn't mean that this can be seen as "oh, this is under copyright now".

I don't say it's technical impossible. To the contrary, it very much is possible. It's just more work. This drives the development costs up and can give some form of satisfaction to angered ex-reddit users like me. However, those costs will be peanuts for giants like Google / Alphabet.

NYT is currently suing because of copyright infringiments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html

it’s unclear that copyright has anything to say about AI training anyway

Although lawmakers worldwide have slept while AI advanced and therefore missed to make some important laws, they are catching up. Europe recently passed its first AI act. As far as I've seen it also states that companies must disclose a detailed summary of their training data.

https://www.ml6.eu/blogpost/ai-models-compliance-eu-ai-act

I think I have about 4000 comments on reddit. I've stopped using reddit last year in summer when they pushed their fucking API changes; have been on Lemmy since and never looked back. However, I still have the account, because sometimes I had really nice conversations, which I would like to look up once in a while, or to pick up something which I wanted to keep for another time, like a bookmark basically. I'm also one of the people who sometimes write really really much; walls of text as a product of a lot of effort I put in. It would be sad to see it all go away. Then again, fuck reddirt and it's management.

Is there a tool to back up my comments (or also the corresponding threads)? After that I'll gladly use the tool provided by luddite.

How to create value:
Take something away. Ask for money to return it.

Business genius. /s

Also why would you care if someone jerks off to a photo you uploaded, regardless of potential nude edits. They can also just imagine you naked.

Imagining and creating physical (even digial) material are different levels of how real and tangible it feels. Don't you think?

There is an active act of carefully editing those pictures involved. It's a misuse and against your intention when you posted such a picture of yourself. You are loosing control by that and become unwillingly part of the sexual act of someone else.

Sure, those, who feel violated by that, might also not like if people imagine things, but that's still a less "real" level.

For example: Imagining to murder someone is one thing. Creating very explicit pictures about it and watching them regularly, or even printing them and hanging them on the walls of one's room, is another.
I don't want to equate murder fantasies with sexual ones. My point is to illustrate that it feels to me and obviously a lot of other people that there are significant differences between pure imagination and creating something tangible out of it.

I disagree. I think it should be illegal. (And stay that way in countries where it's already illegal.) For several reasons. For example, you should have control over what happens with your images. Also, it feels violating to become unwillingly and unasked part of the sexual act of someone else.

To add to this:

Imagine someone would sneak into your home and steal your shoes, socks and underwear just to get off on that or give it to someone who does.

Wouldn't that feel wrong? Wouldn't you feel violated? It's the same with such AI porn tools. You serve to satisfy the sexual desires of someone else and you are given no choice. Whether you want it or not, you are becoming part of their act. Becoming an unwilling participant in such a way can feel similarly violating.

They are painting and using a picture of you, which is not as you would like to represent yourself. You don't have control over this and thus, feel violated.

This reminds me of that fetish, where one person is basically acting like a submissive pet and gets treated like one by their "master". They get aroused by doing that in public, one walking with the other on a leash like a dog on hands and knees. People around them become passive participants of that spectactle. And those often feel violated. Becoming unwillingly, unasked a participant, either active or passive, in the sexual act of someone else and having no or not much control over it, feels wrong and violating for a lot of people.
In principle that even shares some similarities to rape.

There are countries where you can't just take pictures of someone without asking them beforehand. Also there are certain rules on how such a picture can be used. Those countries acknowledge and protect the individual's right to their image.

One of my teachers back in school said that school was an education factory and we were the product.

Although you can't deny that there is a systemic connection between religions and topics like these.

Because it's "not official" and is therefore seen as a security risk.

(which you're not allowed to use, depending on company policy)

If a corporation willingly abuses every loophole in laws or lack of laws even though it is able to know what would be more beneficial for their customers or humanity or at least to know what the law originally intended, then it's just plain evil shit. It's still people who work at companies and make immoral decisions. They have the power to decide.