• William@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    As long as there are decent minimums, I think that sounds like the best contract that could be negotiated. Completely disallowing it was never going to happen. The concern was that they’d be paid once and they out of a job forever, also preventing others from getting jobs as well. Instead, there are ongoing fees that support them instead. I think that’s perfectly reasonable, unless there’s no minimum fees for those things, and then it’s a race to the bottom, and virtually no different than not getting fees at all.

    Saying they deserve to lose their work is too much, though.

    • money_loo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m specifically referencing all the fear mongers who think the AI is some evil threat and are still against its usage even under such a fair and restrictive contract.

      This is really the best of both worlds for all parties, and as far as I could tell, the only people that might suffer are the consumers if the quality of the AI isn’t very good, but everybody else is still getting paid the same and more.

      If you’re upset about that just because of the letters, AI then yeah you deserve to lose your job.

      • steakmeout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        No matter how you attempt to justify your statement you’re plain wrong - nobody deserves to lose their work.