Welcome Anthropic as a Corporate Patron sponsor of the Blender Foundation’s Development Fund!

[flesh@transfem.social]

@Blender@mastodon.social This is going to really mess up your optics, folks.

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@Blender You'll have to reword it some more because anything that starts with accepting it at all still falls under "tone-deaf."

The best I can think of as a suggestion: we were forced by tone-deaf people to accept money from a known evil corporation, but don't worry, we promise we'll try not to become evil overnight. Fork now while you still can!

[simplicator@federate.social]

@mhoye @Blender https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE

[schrotthaufen@mastodon.social]

@Blender Accepting money from Anthropic is accepting blood money so Anthropic can launder their image. They’re, please forgive my crassness, shitting on artists, ripping them off, and produce the artistic equivalent of toxic sludge.

[noondlyt@hellions.cloud]

@Blender

This isn't tone deaf. This is deaf dumb and blind. And what you did there is called "Spin"

[sternentau@don.linxx.net]

@Blender

[art_codesmith@toot.cafe]

@fsiddi Wait I'm confused.
Is this a one-off donation? Because neither the Fediverse post nor the announcement on blender.org imply that.

[art_codesmith@toot.cafe]

@fsiddi Also what does "it's a donation" even mean? Does this mean you would accept a donation from any organization, no matter how sketchy it is?

[rapsneezy2@mastodon.social]

@lumi @Blender

It's blood in soaked money.

Not just the issue of gen ai.

[thejacenallen@mastodon.social]

@Blender scumbags

[amosmulder@mastodon.social]

@fsiddi Did Blender really think Anthropic would be welcomed by its user base?

If no, why did you accept the sponsorship?

If yes, HOW? It can't be too hard to imagine a lot of people will see this as whitewashing of an extremely polarizing company that is regarded as a threat to society and the environment by many.

[faraiwe@mstdn.social]

@fsiddi @art_codesmith I assume you MET #Anthropic, and what they always have done, yes? Namely, the stuff they have been DOING, lately?

Plus, look at the "intense feedback¨... these are the people who use the software and spread its usage among others.

Maybe listen to them. I know, dollars talk loud, but...maybe consider not killing Blender by making it Yet Another Slop Depo.

We are all TIRED, to the bone, and ANGRY, to the bone, about #LLMs. No one wants it.

[thetrond75@mastodon.social]

@Blender Sounds like the Blender management team doesn't know who their users are. Tone-deaf indeed.

[rapsneezy2@mastodon.social]

@dianaprobst @Blender

- They're helping to kill terrorist babies?

Ok, that's unfair. Try again.

- They're helping to kill babies that will grow up to be terrorists.

Nope. Still doesn't do it for me.

[konstruct@woof.tech]

@Blender what the fuck are you doing

[lukefromdc@kolektiva.social]

@gruni @Blender While I do not object to non-monetized end user piracy of just about anything, these AI companies while they can claim to be "transformative"(one of the fair use tests) are making money off the content they sieze. Making money off someone else's work makes it far harder to claim fair use.

In some cases they are using authors' or artists' work essentially to compete against them in the same market for the same money.

An equivalent to this judgement can be found in of all places Youtube's policies as of circa 2012, no idea if they still hold today. Videos with 3ed party music uploaded there get found by a scanning program and the publishers (NOT the authors!) get to decide what to do next.

Most of them simply demand their cut of the money Youtube makes selling ads on these videos, and they get it. What Youtube does NOT allow is for the uploader to sell ads and make money themselves on content with 3ed party content, that's a far bigger deal than 3ed party content on a non-user monetized channel.

These AI firms make money or hope to make money on their "work." They are using other peoples' work to make their money and (except in this settlement) refusing to share the loot. They would not be allowed to monetize videos on Youtube, and should not be allowed to monetize their derivative works anywhere else either.

I hate to have to use Google as an example, but a broken analog clock is right twice a day on civilian time and once a day on military (24 hr) time,

[rndanger@infosec.exchange]

@Blender
Why should artists choose you when you align with the machines that directly steal their work?

[knowprose@mastodon.social]

@keeya @lynndotpy and no one forked then.

You can still fork now.

If it's important enough, open source allows forking.

So... if it's important enough to shout about, but not important enough to fork, alienating people may not be the path.

[nosirrahsec@infosec.exchange]

@Blender Well, good job joining the dark side I guess?

Open source and LLM-slop thieves are not compatible.

Blood money.

[eobet@oldbytes.space]

@fsiddi @greg white washing blood money is what's in it for them. Also, in the long term a slow deterioration of ethics of another FOSS project like what happened with Mozilla.