hard_zero1

At least some money is currently paid for AI and eventually the business has to become profitable. The environmental problem ist of course not approached by this. For the creatives this would give at least some compensation. Problems due to future (creative) work taken over by AI is of course also not covered by this; that's "just" what happens when a new technology arises that obsoletes certain work. My suggestion is trying to copensate for creative work somewhat proportionally to its use.

While writing my other comment, I thought of a way that might be a little bit closer to a solution for the AI use of copyrighted material. In Germany, afaik we are allowed to make and keep a copy of copyrighted material obtained in any legal way (even borrowing, streaming, etc.) for strictly private and personal noncommercial use. As a compensation, when buying a device that can store or process data (e.g. USB-stick, phone, computer), a small part of the money goes to copyright collectives ("Verwertungsgesellschaften"). Copyright holders can be members of those and get compensation or their work via them (those collectives are also the entities that sell you a license to e.g. play music at public events).

I can imagine a similar system for AI: A part of any subscription, fee, etc. for AI could go to those copyright collectives as a compensation for the material used in training. Compared to obtaining a license once for training (like buying physical books), this has the advantage that the compensation would scale with the actual use of the AI and also the revenue of the AI companies.

I think those systems are far from perfect, but that's probably a much better approximation to fairness than what we currently have

If this was done by trustworthy organizations as an effort to digitize and preserve all the books, I would appreciate it. Maybe an association of libraries should do that and, to get the cost back, sell the digital versions / ebooks to the AI companies for an additional price). Then, at least, we would not loose the contents of those rare books to the AI conpanies and prevent them from obtaining a monopoly on the data. And each book would only get destroyed once.

But libraries/bookshops are probably not allowed to sell digital versions, and AI companies are not allowed to use borrowed ebooks.

Are your aware of this?: https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026

This is obviously a big conspiracy where Huggingface claimed to have been hacked by an AI, 6 days before OpenAI attributes the attack to their model, so they can somehow profit, despite their alleged failures to secure their systems, from a stronger belief in the capabilities of AI. Surely, nobody but the Lemmy community would ever notice that LLMs are actually not capable of anything and everyone using them is just extremely stupid.

I'm frankly quite annoyed by the amount and extend of anti-AI hate in this community. It almost seems like this is a pure anti-AI rage community. The capabilities and the utility of LLMs are basically always denied or downplayed as much as possible without running into obvious contradictions.

It would be so nice to have some differentiated and insightful discussions here, about what can or cannot be done with AI, positive and negative impacts it has, possible new use cases, how AI should or should not be used, how the overall benefits of AI can be maximized and the overall negative effects minimized, what the world with AI could be like in the future, ...