Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Daedalean (daedalean@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 05:39:02 JST Daedalean

   • Church of Jeff
   • aziz
   • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

   @iinac @aziz @jeffowski @blogdiva absolutely. The issue you and I are having is that we disagree that there’s a way to do what your proposing that makes financial sense for both the provider/producer of the data and the business training the model.

   • Embed this notice
     Church of Jeff (jeffowski@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 05:39:00 JST Church of Jeff

     in reply to

     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @daedalean @iinac @aziz @blogdiva --

     You know that you've used a very specific logic fallacy here?

     One thing does not lead to another.

     Paying the artists will not bankrupt the #AI companies.

     AGAIN, we already have a working model to show you how it can be done with Music royalties and how it should be applied to AI.

     Again, we have a willingness of one side to accept the injustice and accept the harms while the other profits, while shouting down a solution without any evidence.

   • Embed this notice
     Daedalean (daedalean@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 05:39:01 JST Daedalean

     in reply to

     • Church of Jeff
     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @iinac @aziz @jeffowski @blogdiva Let’s just say we apply US copyright law to the art ai companies have already used. (We should btw). Any dollar amounts paid out that would have any material benefit to the artists would immediately end those companies. And America didn’t lose it’s advantage, american AI companies did (assuming deepseek works as advertised)

   • Embed this notice
     Church of Jeff (jeffowski@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 05:40:49 JST Church of Jeff

     in reply to

     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @daedalean @iinac @aziz @blogdiva --

     "Any dollar amounts paid out that would have any material benefit to the artists would immediately end those companies." CITATION PLEASE.

     You've made an assertion without ANY evidence and your whole argument is based on this spurious logic.

   • Embed this notice
     Daedalean (daedalean@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Feb-2025 11:58:43 JST Daedalean

     in reply to

     • Church of Jeff
     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @jeffowski @iinac @aziz @blogdiva no logical fallacy, just an understanding of the scale of data (content) theft that has occurred.

   • Embed this notice
     Church of Jeff (jeffowski@mastodon.world)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Feb-2025 11:58:43 JST Church of Jeff

     in reply to

     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @daedalean @iinac @aziz @blogdiva -- #9

   • Embed this notice
     Daedalean (daedalean@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 02:45:05 JST Daedalean

     in reply to

     • Church of Jeff
     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @jeffowski @iinac @aziz @blogdiva you think a company having to pay out more $ in liability then it has available does not logically lead to it going out of business?

   • Embed this notice
     Church of Jeff (jeffowski@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 02:45:05 JST Church of Jeff

     in reply to

     • aziz
     • your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

     @daedalean @iinac @aziz @blogdiva --

     Again, One does not lead to the other since you have no evidence for it other that saying it, while I have several working models of this royalties plan in Apple Music, Pandora, and Spotify, showing you that it in fact DOES WORK.