From the article…

But while many think that YouTube’s system isn’t great, Trendacosta also said that she “can’t think of a way to build the match technology” to improve it, because “machines cannot tell context.” Perhaps if YouTube’s matching technology triggered a human review each time, “that might be tenable,” but “they would have to hire so many more people to do it.”

That’s what it comes down to, right there.

Google needs to spend money on people, and not just rely on the AI automation, because it’s obviously getting things wrong, its not judging context correctly.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

or replying to week-old comments by someone doing the thing I find annoying.

Again, its five days since you posted your comment, not a week, and its just seen by me for the first time about two hours ago.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Also, this is my new signature line, so thanks.

You’re welcome. I appreciate you helping out with normalizing signature lines.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

The point you felt was worth making a week later

Again, five days ago. Some people like myself stumble upon a post/comment days and days later from when its initially posted.

is that I am free to block someone who does something I find kind of annoying?

Yeah, for some reason people who complain about me using a license seem to keep forgetting that option, but instead just continue to complain, for some strange reason, no matter how many times I remind them of that option. Thought it was a good PSA to remind the complainers they they have alternatives to complaining.

That seems a little extreme to me.

If that seems extreme to you, then you need to touch grass more often.

Extreme would be continuing to complain about something that you have the power to change, but don’t change.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

What is that point?

at the very least it’s way less annoying to see it on a website than it is under every comment

You’re free to block those that use the license, if you find it annoying to see.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

You’re free to reply to a week-old comment, too, but neither is a great idea

Actually, five days, not a week.

And also, sometimes its just about making a point, even if you stumble upon something later on. 🤷

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

at the very least it’s way less annoying to see it on a website than it is under every comment

You’re free to block those that use the license, if you find it annoying to see.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

what are you going to do? Sue?

Personally? I let Creative Commons know what’s going on, that their licenses are being ignored.

I’m pretty sure they’d have something to say about the matter.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Ah well then I might try and find a license that doesn’t require attribution because I don’t care about that part.

I would argue attribution is also really important, as it forces them to expose publicly how they’re training their models, bringing awareness.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Nice off-topic comment. Pretty sure by now everybody is aware of that (and other posts) on the topic of using a license.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

n the meantime I’ve been changing my post sort from Active, to Top Posts in the Past 12 Hours.

If you set it to ‘New’ Lemmy becomes a whole new place.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

for fun I ran this through GPT just to see what it’d say. Not that I would trust it to be correct ever, but it’s interesting getting an “outside opinion” about this.

I’m don’t believe an “outside opinion” from an AI company’s product, about if an AI company has the legal right to ignore a content’s license and scrape the content to program their models, would be unbiased, and should not be trusted, as you’ve stated.

Attempting to agree to disagree, and move on.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Who cares what lemmy.world said?

It’s where the content was initially posted, so any terms of service would be applicable to the content at the time of posting. That’s why.

The onus is on the Federated server receiving the content that’s already licensed to reject the content if they do not want to abide by the license. If they accept the content, they have to abide by the license.

And as far as the rest of you diatribe, I’ll just remind you that licenses can’t just be stripped from content because some third-party TOS says it can.

We would have seen much ‘money laundering’ style mayhem on the Internet with other people’s content before today, if that was possible.

I think we’ve discussed this enough, so I’m just going to leave it with an ‘agree to disagree’, and move on.

Have a nice day.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

For many many years even low end Android phones can perfectly run emulated game systems that came out a decade or two after atari, so cpu probably isn’t a bottleneck at all

Yeah, I kind of agree, but I just threw it out there as a possibility, as maybe their code base is really bad and non-performant.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

I hold to my argument. In the current Lemmy (and fediverse environment as a whole) I can put on my server that my placing data on my server, you forego all licenses, and I can do what I like.

You keep arguing the wrong point.

No one is saying you can’t on your server create a TOS that says that anyone who puts content on your server that you then own that content, you become the owner. That’s not what’s being discussed.

The point is because of various reasons like safe harbor and PR, Lemmy World and other servers in the Federation are not claiming ownership.

When you post your comment on the Lemmy World server, you still own it, and you can license that content that you own in any way that you like, and that license is on the content, not on the server, so as that content is federated, that license travels with it and is still in action, and must be abided by.

I think this is a new area that doesn’t have a clear definition yet, and since other sites can have clauses saying you give up ownership by using it, I think that could be argued here too.

I feel confident in my position, because if we went with your position then it would be very easy to “money launder” anyone’s content by just passing it through a third party Federated server with a TOS that says they own any content on their server. I’m pretty sure the big boys who own content aren’t going to allow that to happen, and would talk to their friends in Congress about it.

It’s really mostly existing basic content law. It’s not as cloudy and up in the air as everyone wants to say it is, there’s just a new wrinkle to it, and I’m pretty sure those in power will make sure everything stays status quo.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

I can go and add that to my ToS right now, that anything you give me will be trained. I say in there that I will disregard any license on there, and by placing anything on my server you are relieving yourself of any license. Since it’s my server, I can say that. “If you don’t want your data trained on, don’t put it on my server.”

So you’re setting up a straw man by adding the TOS clause of ownership on the posting server to your example. I’m not saying that. The issue being discussed by me in response to your comment was if a license on content that is being federated stays with the content or is somehow magically stripped off when its federated.

As far as your TOS example goes, If Lemmy World added to their TOS that any content added to their site they own, then I wouldn’t post any content on Lemmy, as I want to keep ownership of my content.

But since Lemmy World does not do that (smartly so for safe harbor reasons), then the creator of the content is the owner of the content, and if they license that content it carries forward as the content is federated. Its up to the receiver of the federated content to reject the content, or abide by its licensing.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

All fediverse apps start on your instance

You forgot about the web client.

You’re literally giving it to anyone who would listen.

The quantity of sharing does not dimish the licensing of the content.

So to me copyright is like saying “only people I approve of can look at this sign” and then posting that sign on every tree and post in town

I mean, ProPublica has explicit instructions on how to share their content with others, content that is licensed with a Creative Commons license, and that includes displaying the license number, when you share the content.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

If someone includes it at the bottom of all their comments, but never launches legal action when someone violates that licence agreement, then it’s literally useless.

Well, its ‘poisoning the well’. What happens next depends.

For AI companies that actually honor licensing, or are fearful of getting caught at some point, they’ll honor/follow the license for the content.

And for those who do not, if they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Creative Commons (and other license creators) will have something to say about it. And they will get caught, we all know about black-box programming their models from the outside via our comments.

Finally, Congress right this second is considering new laws about this, so you never know. Companies in the future may be forced to have to explicitly state where the content comes from that they train their AI models on.

As far as wasting my time, all I do is copy/paste this one line of text via a macro keypress …

[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)

Its a momentary thing, so no effort at all.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Whereas Lemmy and fediverse you’re giving your stuff out license free to anyone,

• Unless you attach a license to your content.
• Even if you don’t license it explicitly, there’s default implied copyright law on how your content can be used.
  .

and any other server can have their own terms. Such as “By giving me your data you are giving it to me license free, and remove yourself of all ownership.” Unless it’s specifically defederated, well there’s no way of you knowing and so you give your data.

If you license your content, that license travels with the content, and has to be honored on other servers (Federated or otherwise).

The license is with the content, and not the server the content is first posted to.

What does a judge say in that case?

“Other server owners, did you follow the license that the content is licensed with? No?” **

You said not to use it, but you put it on a server that said they can use it however they want.

Lemmy.World’s TOS does not claim ownership of our content that is posted/shared to their server. So they can’t use it however they want, they do not own the content, each individual poster still does.

And they don’t want to own our content, as that’s one hell of a ‘safe harbor’ law exposure/risk for them, if they start to do that.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

From the article…

It did manage, however, to release a truly bizarre app for iOS and Android devices that requires two smartphones or tablets to work. One device displays the game and the other acts as a controller. It’s a weird idea and, according to Kotaku, “one janky piece of crap.”

The only reason I can think of them doing that is maybe because of CPU overutilization?

Either that, or they wanted to set one up as a game server, and then have multiple phones be the clients. They just forgot to add the feature to let the server run locally on the client.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}