Skip to main content


Perpetual reminder that the entire business model of LLM-based chatbots, no matter their nationality, is based on intellectual property theft and this gem from XKCD:
XKCD comic, Cueball Prime stands with a paddle on top of a pile of stuff including a funnel labeled "data" and box labeled "answers".<br>Cueball II: This is your machine learning system? - Yup! You pour the data into this big pile of linear algebra, then collect the answers on the other side. - What if the answers are wrong? - Just stir the pile until they start looking right.
#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #LLM
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
nails it perfectly. 👍
The reshares of this post by AI aggregator bot channels are hilarious in this context.
true except sometimes the last line is replaced with "fuck it, who cares?"
Property theft? How is this possible?
#chatbot #llm
So im gonna listen to a song and the neural network called my brain will learn from it, so when i write my own song, turns out its theft? We're so used to culture being restricted that we lost our senses.
@kn_fk This is such a bad faith argument you've proved you're more than just a machine learning system.

@kn_fk

"The Human-AI Scale is Not Comparable

First, humans and AI systems do not consume creative works in the same way. A human can read a novel, watch a television show or movie, or listen to a song, and while it might spark inspiration, they cannot instantly absorb every book, every screenplay, every melody ever created. "

@kn_fk

"Artificial intelligence, by contrast, operates on a scale no human ever could. It ingests billions of pieces of work—copyrighted or otherwise—at speed most of us will never comprehend, building a knowledge base that no single creator, or even all creators combined, could rival.

That’s not inspiration; that’s extraction on an industrial scale."

@kn_fk
"Humans are bound by time, access, and attention. AI faces no such limits. It doesn’t skim a book; it processes every sentence. It doesn’t watch a film for its plot; it analyses every shot, script line, and score. The claim that this is equivalent to human inspiration trivialises the reality of what AI systems do when they train on copyrighted content.

AI isn’t inspired by a work—it’s inspired by all works."

@davido1975
The difference is still just scale. To think this is ethically questionable is a legitimate concern worthy of debate. But to call it theft would require a redefinition of property itself.
@kn_fk @David Högberg "just" is load-bearing here. Get the fuck out of here with your false equivalencies.

@kn_fk

"When a human consumes creative works—whether reading a book, streaming a movie, or listening to music—there’s an economic exchange.

Libraries pay for books and recorded works. Schools and universities do the same.

Streaming platforms license music and films. Cinemas pay to exhibit. Theatres, arenas and stadiums pay for performances. Even ad-supported services like radio and television networks ensure creators receive royalties, however small."

@kn_fk

"In every scenario, the creator is compensated, directly or indirectly, for the use of their work.

AI companies, however, have built models by sidestepping this system entirely."

@kn_fk

"They’re not paying licensing fees to access the books, films, or music they train on. They’re not compensating creators for the value their works add to the AI’s capabilities. Instead, they’re mining the world's reserve of copyrighted material without acknowledging or paying for the creativity, craft, and sheer labour that went into creating it."

@kn_fk

There’s another key distinction: humans are end users.

AI companies are platforms and enablers—just like Spotify, Netflix, or a publishing house. Those platforms don’t get a free pass to use copyrighted works because they facilitate creativity; they pay licensing fees to use, distribute, and profit from those works.

AI platforms should be no different."

@kn_fk

"The idea that AI shouldn’t have to pay because “it’s like a human finding inspiration” conveniently ignores the fact that AI is not a person—it’s a product. And when a product derives its value from copyrighted works, the creators of those works deserve compensation. Artificial intelligence companies are creating tools designed to replace human labour and creativity in many cases, and they are monetising those tools."

@kn_fk

"To claim that they don’t owe creators because “humans don’t pay for inspiration” is to obscure the scale and stakes of what’s happening."

@davido1975
You are making very good points and i agree that this could be disruptive with the existing business models surrounding culture. I just think it's incorrect to call it theft.
this is soo accurate.

My company is very big on AI right now, and I'm now part of a trial aimed at using such tools to help Neurospicy employees.

They foolishly asked for my opinions ahead of the upcoming learning sessions.

I gave them both barrels. I wish I'd had this to attach for them.

No, they are not.

Prove me wrong.

@Birne Helene AI bots blindly resharing AI criticism is a funny parallel with the fact LLM-based AI systems do not perceive meaning. Not that these channels are using any kind of AI though.
the fact LLM-based AI systems do not perceive meaning.


And that is the crucial point, I think.