Sorry. I'm sure I don't have the good words to describe, but all the ai and robot cars churn my stomach. Biological vs machines? Somebody help me find the good framing.

They support a lame ass tech that is helping to destroy the environment while stealing from small artists and they have the nerve to call anyone else "sus" lmao

>they so it isn't just robots you hate huh

I'm assuming good faith ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I say wild shit all the time. But I can learn.

If you think the training process itself is stealing, then kindly delete any free software you're using as you obviously do not ascribe to the ethos of open source that created those softwares. And cease any piracy use of software.

Software developer volunteering on a project ≠ Artist who has not consented has their work fed into the machines

Open source is essentially communist ideal. From each according to their means, to each according to their needs. If you refuse to contribute when you can, you're stealing from the common.

Not everything is open source, and - more importantly - not everything should be.

Translation: "everything that I should pay for should be open source, everything that someone should pay me should not be."

Not at all. Anything where the primary source of value is, rather than the code, the data provided with the code (and, therefore, at its extreme, anything that is pure data)... for the duration of its copyright, those should not be open source, for the same reason copyright initially existed.

Now, don't get me wrong, copyright durations are overly long at present and do not actually help fulfill what the original purpose of copyright was: making sure that artists can make a viable living off producing their art.

That last bit is where the "bUt AI sHouLdN't hAvE tO pAy foR tRaINiNg mAteRiAlS" assholes are coming from, and I'm sorry, but fewer people will create art "just for the joy of it" than will do so if it's possible to make money off of it.

What things shouldn't be open source?

Short version: if you can copyright something and aren't opting to make it open source at the time, it shouldn't be forced into being open source until the end of the copyright. (That said, there is no excuse for "life of the author + X years" as the duration of a copyright.)

Sure, then stop using free software and pay for it.

A single hamburger does as much to help destroy the environment as thousands of uses of that lame ass tech. Handy tool for more comparisons: context.supply

Oh I’m going to be using this website sooooo much, thanks for the link. There are lots of good criticisms to be made of the environmental impact of AI but I’m not sure the people making those criticisms are always aware of their own environmental impacts.