[milofeynman]

I think a reasonable thing folks want is to not have their art or design used to train these models without permission.

[123yawaworht456]

did the author of the post you're replying to give you permission to read his comment?

[kylebenzle]

But that is utterly UNreasonable, of course, that is obviously why the courts did not side with that opinion (also because it's a stupid and naive opinion).

Unless they are saying they don't want anyone "trained" on "their data", it's a phrase that simply makes no sense and only expressed by people who don't know how the real world works at all.

[spacemadness]

You can tell who is trying to make money off AI by calling any criticism of scraping creators works naive and stupid.

[ringeryless]

as the rights holder, creator of content, of COURSE it is reasonable for me to assign these rights as I see fit, and scraping my works without my consent is brazen theft. I am free to not grant usage to pattern rip-off machines, that explicitly are NOT humans consuming my work in manners i have in mind.

spare me the false equivalence of pattern theft from human beings learning or reacting.

the express purpose of said pattern ripoff machines is to obviate me and regurgitate likenesses of my work, so, no, i shall not participate in my own murder.

[votepaunchy]

The courts have ruled that you do not have these rights to gatekeep, as with the right of first sale.

[amanaplanacanal]

The courts interpret the laws as they exist. I think GP is suggesting a change to the law.