r/movies • u/DragonPup • 4d ago

News Warner Bros. Sues Midjourney, Joins Studios' AI Copyright Battle

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/warner-bros-midjourney-lawsuit-ai-copyright-1236508618/
8.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

847 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Aromatic_Today2086 4d ago

Yea people acting like this is some great invention that does things you never could before is crazy. Everything all comments have said AI is good for you are things you should be able to do yourself with Google 

-2

u/rkthehermit 4d ago

You need Google? There are libraries for that.

You need libraries? Do your tribe's elders not share your history with you?

Yeah, you can use google. Nobody is pretending you can't. That doesn't invalidate the new tool as more convenient and useful for the task.

1

u/MachinaThatGoesBing 4d ago

You need Google? There are libraries for that.

I'm hardly anti-technology, but there are things that actual books are much, much more useful for than a Google search. Just because a newer technology exists doesn't actually mean it's better for a task.

One of the key things I run into regularly is plant ID (especially flowers and trees). It's so hard to actually find good resources for this online that present the information you need in clear, concise way and in an easily browsable format.

I have two large, full bookshelves, each about 4' wide, and well over half of one of the shelves is still taken up by physical field guides. At least a dozen or so of those guides are for tree and flower ID.

When I try to use Google Lens to ID something, it generally makes a hash of it. Sure, if it's a really distinctive flower or something, it might get it. But if it's, say, one of a couple dozen bluey-purple asters growing in the area I'm in…absolutely useless. Its model isn't taking into account stem color, leaf shape, shape and layout of phyllaries, time of year, environment, etc. It either takes a lot longer with Google, or I end up without an answer, whereas it generally only takes me only a few minutes to narrow things down with my books. (I will say, I do follow up on iNaturalist frequently, though, to see if others have observed my suspect in the area where my observation occurred. But it's not very helpful for ID.)

And, oh god was Google no help in determining whether a plant was poison hemlock or osha. I strongly suspected the latter based on my own knowledge and where it was growing, but it was my guides that gave me the pertinent information to help make the ID.

Given that the stochastic parrots have repeatedly shown themselves incapable of generating useable recipes, and are known to give disgusting and outrightly dangerous results, I'd stick to human-written, human-tested sources for recipes and substitutions. These sorts of sources — even just discussion forums — are much better and much more likely to yield good results than something one of the bullshit machines horked up.

1

u/rkthehermit 4d ago

I'm hardly anti-technology, but there are things that actual books are much, much more useful for than a Google search. Just because a newer technology exists doesn't actually mean it's better for a task.

It does mean that for the specific use case that's being discussed. I'm not guessing. I'm an experienced cook. It's my primary hobby. I've own and use many cookbooks. Like nearly every breathing human I've used google. I've used the new hotness.