Post #4074244

2026-07-17 06:59 UTC

If a machine made it, no one owns it. so, everything’s fair game since the industrial revolution? look, I understand what you’re trying to say and for the most part I agree but my point is that AI is fundamentally just another tool doing the same thing as other tools but unified and using natural language. what’s the difference if someones builds a website using a website building app like Wix, or uses AI to build one? i still fundamentally disagree with the enormous environmental costs of AI, the infringements of creatives and contributors in its training, the economic cliff its disruption has put us on, the rapid expansion of energy-hungry infrastructure data centres, and the health reports of local residents who have been forced to endure the 24-hour operation of them.

Replies (1)

@thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-07-17 07:37

I probably could have worded it better. To answer your point, creating an object using a machine is not a creative process by the definition used in this context, unless you put your creativity in it too. It’s the difference between creating a dress based on your own design and making it based on someone else’s. The ownership comes from the ideation, not the machanical process used to make the dress. The key difference between AI and other tools is that it replaces the creative part of the process, thus removing the human factor. As a side note, most of the time the end product contains both elements generated with AI and others done by humans. How much human contribution is required for it to be considered a creative work will probably be up to courts and lawmakers I’m afraid. On a more ideological note, one could argue that AI models were created using basically the entirety of humanity works, often without compensating the ones holding the rights to such works, and thus should be owned by all humanity.

Open ##4076799