I know he wants to use all the data to train LLMs, but do you think this would positively affect the average person, or would the laws still target the little guys?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

No, this is a fucking terrible idea and anyone who thinks otherwise has not thought anything through. If you can't make enough money creating art to sustain yourself, people are going to very quickly make a lot less art.

Anyone here who just wants free content is going to pretty quickly realize that there's very little new content being made.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I doubt the reduction in content made would affect us badly. Certainly wouldn't affect me. Most musicians I listen to do not make a living from their music and the ones that do are subsidized heavily by government grants.

Commercialisation of the arts has been an overall negative IMO because it lures audiences into trashiness and away from the quality.

You could argue that removing copyright would take us back to when only mobility could afford the time or have the connections to be commissioned but having connections is already a big factor.

Even if you don't agree with that you may agree with a UBI ushering in a Renaissance of the arts as suggested by Brian Eno in this 4 minute video.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago

Yeah, I worry about that with all the LLM slop.