this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
91 points (98.9% liked)

Fuck AI

7685 readers
1148 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
VerbFlow@lemmy.world
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
TootSweet@lemmy.world
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
cynar@lemmy.world
drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world
WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world
Communist@lemmy.ml
eatCasserole@lemmy.world
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
NutWrench@lemmy.world
Soup@lemmy.cafe
iAvicenna@lemmy.world
Tinks@lemmy.world
wizblizz@lemmy.world
corus_kt@lemmy.world
Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
TrickDacy@lemmy.world
TheFriar@lemm.ee
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
HawlSera@lemm.ee
andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works
33550336@lemmy.world
Nougat@fedia.io
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social
91
AI companies are buying up and destroying tons of old books for training data (www.404media.co)
submitted 6 hours ago by zarkanian@sh.itjust.works to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 34 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

The judge's logic is baffling:

“Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy,” Alsup wrote in his ruling. “The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company.”

AI companies are using the book to create a commercial product. Just because that product isn't an exact copy of the book doesn't mean they're not abusing the copyright.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 9 points 5 hours ago

Just because that product isn't an exact copy of the book doesn't mean they're not abusing the copyright.

No, it does mean that. If a work doesn't contain enough of the original that a layman could identify it as a copy (plagiarism) or derivative, it's not violating or abusing copyright.

Mountains of popular books (and all media, really) are built upon previous works. If copyright worked the way you suggest, none of those stories would be legal.

The act of copying a book you own into a database is legal. That's all Alsup is reaffirming in that quote you shared.

Remember: Copyright is all about distribution. Until a copyrighted work is distributed, copyright law doesn't even really come into play.

Those of us who remember the MPAA/RIAA wars of the 90s and 2000s understand that it is your right to make as many copies of a thing as you damned well please. Fuck the MPAA and fuck you if you're taking their side.

We must never allow corporations to control what we do with our own shit. You know that, "you will own nothing and you'll love it" quote? If you're against what Alsup is saying in this ruling, you support that stance (of owning nothing).

[–] Miller@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It is not baffling, humans have been inspired and influenced in their own work by the work of others since the very start. If you read a book and learn a few words and concepts and then use them in your own book it is called creativity but if AI does it then its called slop. I am human and I am on the side of the humans here, my point is the two things look identical in law and we need a way to distinguish them in the same way acknowledged derivation is differentiated from plagiarism.

[–] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Ai is not human, it is a corporate product fuck this idea that the stochastic parrot is “inspired" fucking llm's are not inspired by shit.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world -5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Maintaining an unsubtle and primitive view will not help ring-fence and protect human creativity. Your words are just noise and add only confusion and distraction to an argument that needs to be clear and precise. AI model output can be inspired and creative, even while in the strictest sense this is still just human creativity repackaged. The most vital thing is that it has to be reliably labelled as AI generated and its primary sources acknowledged, then it can be judged legitimately on its own merit.

[–] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

"Human creativity repackaged" the jokes write themselves, these joyless clowns don't want to do the necessary work for creative ideation and yet they yearn so much for their llm enabled intellectual cuckoldry to be recognized. It always comes off as pleading. This is the main reason why it's so difficult for AI content to be properly labeled as AI; Because while the AI users want to promote themselves as the "next step of human creativity" Once it is labeled as AI assisted people stop caring.

So sorry for not enabling the induced Dunning-kruger maybe you should talk to an llm that enables and supports your views unconditionally and calls your way of thinking "precise thought". Than come back and share with us some more of your ai psychosis.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You are foaming at the mouth, I do not see how you think that can help things. Listening to a little counter argument might advance matters but that is not really your aim is it cuz. You want lynchings because that's what you like.

[–] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

That's good man! you are writing some fiction about might reaction! Keep doing that and you might stop needing the LLM's.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

In 1141 when Matilda took power to be the first ruling Queen of England in the full sense of female King the clerical chroniclers of the time falsely accused her of arrogance to demean her and undermine her legitimacy.

[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I've been reading similar headlines for a while now. This means they're apparently successful at it and not stopping until books are practically gone.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago

Ah yes, for the good of humanity.

[–] Dryad@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Gotta love how ai generated content is considered “contamination.” I agree, it’s just weird hearing it out loud.

[–] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Llm content is useless spam. This is not weird at all.

[–] Dryad@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I know it’s not factually weird, it’s just weird to hear an insider admit it.