this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
688 points (98.9% liked)
Gaming
4102 readers
205 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Downloading isn't stealing??? Are you delusional? It is in this case. Just because the law doesn't recognise it is irrelevant, I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about the ethics of ripping off small, underpaid artists.
Download a game, or a movie, or an album without the required license. That's piracy.
If I download a Disney movie, and use clips of it in my game, how do you think a court case would go?
Or if I download idk, a Taylor Swift album and use that in my game without a license, do you think the law would agree with me or Taylor Swift?
And my only excuse is "I couldn't afford to make my own music so I used yours"?
Using ai is no different. You're taking someone else's work, not paying for it, and using it in your training model without permission.
Just because they may have no ill intent is irrelevant, it only speaks to their ignorance on the matter.
"I'm sorry officer I didn't mean to speed, I had no ill intent". Ok, you're still getting a ticket. Ignorance is no excuse.
dbzer0 users out here defending the capitalist system 😎
You're talking about your supposed right to enforce your idea of ethics on people who don't agree with you, in a situation where there is no universal consensus, there is no law backing you up, and all supposed harms are abstract, indirect, and essentially a dispute about market competition.
It matters because it's one clear reason why the people harassing them are assholes. Pretty different from a situation where someone has violated an established law very closely linked to putting people at risk of direct physical harm and that law is being enforced.
"illegal = unethical" is a fascist take
The harms are real, but it's also about control over your creations that you own, would you want your creations stolen, copied, mashed up with other stolen creations and the occational public domain thing, and extruded as slop?
Or a better question, do you want the right for your creations not to be used like this? Surely it would be good if you could specify AI policies in licenses and they were legally enforceable?
That is not why I'm mentioning it, I agree that legality and ethics are separate. The point is that regardless of who is right about the ethics of this, applying vigilante enforcement to this kind of situation is unhinged, and signals about whether something is ok to do like legality do matter for that. If such popular enforcement is ever justified, it's in situations where people are getting hurt where there is little ambiguity and clear malice, that's absolutely not the case here.
so having rules against AI on a platform is "vigilante enforcement"??? no. what a bullshit take. is the "no bigotry" rule on a discord server "vigilante enforcement" of anti-bigotry ideas?
"vigilante enforcement" would be DDoS-ing AI
I feel like you're dramatically misinterpreting my statements on purpose now, this one is more obvious. I'm on the fence about whether disclosure requirements are a good idea, but am not emphatically condemning it, it's understandable that they have them. But I am emphatically condemning efforts to use AI disclosures to brigade and harass developers, and I think the existence of those efforts is the reason why requiring disclosure is questionable.
Uh yeah man there's some people who are actually ok with having the brain worms inserted into other people's ears? Sure it kills them and it's being used for genocide but there's no law against brain worms and since there's like, a handful of people ok with it and it's not 100% universally condoned ethically and it's not illegal everywhere then how could you possibly be so mean to impose your morality on other people?!
That's what you sound like.
"Oh hey billionaires are making Earth destroying computers that are killing jobs and stealing art and music and saying humans are better off without doing the one thing that we've always regarded as fundamental for humanity, but some idiots like instant gratification so they are ok with it, so no one should be saying anything bad about the earth destroying theft machines"