I find it excellent that game devs have firmly rejected stolen content. At the end of the day it’s their livelihoods. Openai and those who promote the idea of reselling work without permission should be out of business. But their bet is that if done at scale they’ll get away with it. At least one industry rejected their philosophy. Other software and content developers should follow suit.
If you only care when something affects you personally it's hard to take your criticism seriously. It's much easier when you have no stake in the game or even benefit from it.
Likewise, if you can say "this sucks for me personally but is a net positive for humanity", then I have a much easier time to consider your endorsement.
As a programmer, I'm glad if AI tools can learn from my code and improve copilot etc. for everyone. I find it exasperating how much other creators clutch their pearls over the same thing.
Think of it like those in favour of communism. They find it easy to demand that other people share the output of their work for free so they can benefit from it. Similarily, programmers that produce insignificant code are happy to use the valued work of others for free. For instance, corporations have no issue in using the enormously valuable work of open source developers and neither do some of their mediocre workers. Essentially this is what we are witnessing with demands from workers that folk's work is made available to them so they too can be productive.
On the contrary, only someone who can't produce more value than an AI should be afraid of being replaced by it. Our value is in abstract thought and using tools as force multipliers, not writing boilerplate by hand.
I fail to see how that is relevant to your original comment. You seem to suggest that if you're fine with AI being trained on your code it means that your code is insignificant, which of course makes no sense.
So no code with permissive licenses has any financial value? I release all my code under MIT which means people are free to do whatever they want with it, including training their AI on it.
What are you trying to argue about using open source? A valuable developer uses an open source project when appropriate instead of wasting resources succumbing to NIH.
A valuable developer uses an open source project according to its licensing terms. An unvaluable corporation steals said code and resells it via an ai.
This argument does not work. You are making an assumption that humans learn and create the same way that AI models do. It's also deflecting from what most AI art opponents are actually upset about--the potential loss of income from AI models.
Under certain circumstances, it is theft. Those circumstances are similar to ai software ingesting content. However the two are not comparable. Software has no rights.
