https://smallsheds.garden/blog/2026/on-the-acceptance-of-genai/
@ai6yr @tante That's a very shallow way to represent it. I would say I understand American copyright law, and I understand the contradiction of people who run ad blockers while claiming they support copyright law and the contradiction of people who run ad blockers saying that AI training is stealing.
Public domain exists. Open source exists. Creative Commons exists. And the body of law on fair use goes back quite a long time.
@mrbase @ai6yr @tante we definitely ended up in an unsatisfactory situation with respect to ads, brokers, and blockers. There's no denying that.
It's interesting that no matter what your website license says, the courts say that the blockers are legal, filtering available content under some concept of fair use.
So we are back to what exactly are AIs doing that is stealing? We can give public domain data a clean pass. I think that they honor most open source and Creative Commons licenses 1/2
@mrbase @ai6yr @tante so we are into a muddy legal ground that will probably have to be battled out in the actual courts, about how a fair use doctrine invented in 1741 for copyrighted works applies forward now.
That's just the input side of course. On the output side it seems clear that too closely reproducing an existing work would be a violation as well.
2/2
@3Fingers @ai6yr @tante I definitely got that vibe already, that many on Mastodon, and to a lesser extent Bluesky, approach AI as a class issue.
Seems strange, both because it's what AI has been building towards for the last 70 years. No surprises here that the first command would be "ok, read everything."
But also because Moore's law applies. All of this will be local and distributed over time.
We're actually quite lucky that there are no binding patents or copyrights on AI.
@YinYinFalcon AI runs on memory and operations. Memory and operations have been scaling with Moore's law since it was coined.
There are also now many large public training sets. People download them and run them now with current tech hw.
but that "law" cannot apply forever since it's only an empirical observation of the past
we will (or already have) reached the physical limits there
"There is literally no difference between you and a corporate product -- wait why are you booing me"
@kalong @ai6yr @tante Don't you think it's a moral issue to support the intent of the author/creator, in any context?
I can see it being a moral decision never visit ad supported sites if you have some opposition to them, but to reject the intents of another human being, and to take their hard work?
Are you actually putting this forward as a high moral position?
It's really not the same. Ads are manipulative, do not reflect the reality, and are designed to force themselves inside your brain, using resources that might otherwise be employed for more useful things, for example remembering your actual life events. Sure, maybe one ad won't change anything but being bombarded with ads every second of your online life has to be very bad for your attention and memory (I am not aware of existing studies on this, but this is my educated guess given what we know about how memory works).
So, protecting your brain from ads is completely legitimate and is similar to, say, using an umbrella when it rains. People should have all rights to use ad blockers if the website they're on chose to disregard their mental health and use ads to fund itself. There are other ways to fund a website and ads are not the way.
@elduvelle @ai6yr @tante I get what you're saying, but again I observe that you are putting your moral values upon someone else.
You are not accepting the values of the author or creator.
This is again what bad AI companies do when they simply take from websites.
@elduvelle @ai6yr @tante it goes without saying that when you don't use an ad blocker you can see which sites advertise too much, according to your values, and then simply leave
There are lots of websites where I don't block, but I bail fast.