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 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 think some of that is because the reporting is focused on the new stuff, that was previously not possible. That human work is involved and some of the weaknesses are not really new. But also because the information in this case comes from a company that wants to sell their AI. I agree that the reporting is probably biased and not really sharp and therefore limited in usefulness.

Also, my (second) comment was not specifically about your comment but generally about the "vibe" of this community

I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, I interpreted it the way it seems more natural to me. In the post by the researcher(s) themselves, it says in the tldr paragraph that the "agent produces concrete, reproducible PoC inputs to confirm its findings" but also that they (probably humans) "explored the exploitability of the issues and developed a PoC demonstrating a RCE exploit primitive". Apparently it finds the vulnerabilities very concretely but humans were involved for the full-blown exploit. It also doesn't say much about the number of false-positives.

I'm not in the business, so I can't tell how much of the work such agents are actually saving. Since the articles don't say much about the amount of human involvement, the imagination conveyed by them probably depends strongly on the (knowledge of the) reader. But in my opinion it is a bit of stretch to say this is downplaying it. It should be noted though, that the article probably sources its information from a post by the company selling that AI.

With that information, the "without any confidence" and "area of interest" parts of your previous post still seem misleading.

CO2 emissions are a huge problem, of course. But it is not specific to AI. Data centers are starting to become a significant factor of energy consumption but I think it will stay very manageable compared to other consumers and given the utility it provides. And since data centers luckily natively require electricity, it is much easier, compared to e.g. transportation, to switch them to renewables. And renewables are very often already the cheapest source of energy anyways. So I think AI is just another thing that humans do that requires energy, and it comes with the same tradeoffs (the utility vs. the cost of sourcing that energy). So in my opinion we should mainly focus on accelerating the transition to green energy.

Here's a good overview about AI carbon emissions I just found: https://www.carbonbrief.org/ai-five-charts-that-put-data-centre-energy-use-and-emissions-into-context/

In the article it says the ffmpeg vulns were found by an "autonomous" agent and that it produced a proof-of-concept for each. So what do you base your claims on? They seem quite contrary to that.

Even if there was still a lot of human work involved, it seems that the LLM-Agents can help a lot with security research, as the number of (real) zero-days that are beeing found recently (with the help of AI) seems to spike (telling from what I read, e.g. here on Lemmy, or the number of security updates for my distro).