@tante @ai6yr I wrote about this yesterday, Mastodon's decision to voluntarily downsize in the face of AI. I think it's sad, but I'll take the clue and start unfollowing.
@buckfiftyseven @tante So let me get this right. You are an AI fan, and you don't like people who are not fans of AI (for the reasons in that post), so you are unfollowing people who don't like AI? That's fine, I guess. 🤔

@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.

@buckfiftyseven @tante Ah, so you are saying if you are using an ad blocker, you are as wrong as the AI companies?
@ai6yr @tante it seems pretty similar doesn't it? Taking what you want from a website, regardless of the host's intentions?
@buckfiftyseven @ai6yr @tante Sorry, that’s nonsense. Your business model is not my problem (not you in particular, any possible you who runs an ad-supported business). If I like your service enough to look at it, it’s still my choice as to how much bs I’m willing to put up with. If that means your business isn’t profitable and has to shut down, that’s still my choice as to whether I want to support your business model or not. Everyone has a right to decide how valuable your service is to them.

@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?

@buckfiftyseven @ai6yr @tante Not sure I would call it a moral position, that would be coming it a bit high. Just that if you choose, for example, to publish some piece of writing and hope people will see ads that pay you while they are reading, that is a choice you have made. Your potential readers did not make that choice, and it’s not for you to make the choice for them. Some may choose to cooperate with your business model, others may not. As another commenter pointed out, we’re talking about reading or otherwise consuming your content, which is very different from copying it and then republishing or reusing it without acknowledgment - in that latter case then I would agree that the moral arguments and invocations of copyright would have merit.

@kalong @ai6yr @tante I think you are proving my point entirely.

You are saying that you, the reader, may make the decision about how someone else's work is used, no matter their original intent.

This is exactly what [the worst] AI companies do.

@kalong @ai6yr @tante but it's important to note that some are trying to do better.

"kl3m.ai - the cleanest LLM in the world"

@buckfiftyseven @ai6yr @tante I don’t think I am proving your point, but looks unlikely you will be persuaded of that, so I wish you joy of whatever it is you do.