3 ms·

> Being bad for artists and the environment is not illegal. Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both. > If you look at a m

by bogwog 4y ago

> Being bad for artists and the environment is not illegal. Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both. > If you look at a movie poster, your brain does not need to be released in the public domain. Even if you sketch it from memory. Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not. Copyright laws were made to protect artists from IP theft. If I make a sculpture, it’s not trivial to copy that and steal from me, so creating copyright laws to protect sculptors would be a hard sell. But a painting, a book, a song, etc are easy to steal, especially with technology. Copying and selling someone else’s painting is similar to copying and selling someone else’s sculpture, yet the scale of theft is obviously different (mass producing sculptures is much harder than making unlimited copies of an mp3) These AI models are a new type of theft, and likewise need new types of legal protections for artists.

ekianjo 4y ago
> hese AI models are a new type of theft, and likewise need new types of legal protections for artists. Meh. This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models and will have to find something else to do for a living. Its not the first time in history that an occupation is obsoleted. Projectionnists in cinemas have mostly dissapeared.
- bogwog 4y ago
  If these models are trained on human artists, what’s going to happen if humans stop making original art? It’s obvious from the OP that even a single film is enough to add a new stylistic capability to Dall E, so even though it might have been trained on hundreds of years of human artwork, a single modern piece can still influence significantly. > This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models This makes me think that you’re lacking a fundamental understanding of what art is. The “demand” for art is never going to disappear, but these models are simply going to disrupt the supply by flooding the market with derivative works at a massive scale. The internet posed a similar threat back when it first came out, but laws were changed to combat that (e.g. the DMCA). I fail to see how this situation is any different? A country that doesn’t get on top of this issue will doom itself to cultural irrelevance in the long term, IMO.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
> Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both. Yes, but we don't have copyright laws to protect the environment. So harm to the environment is not a copyright argument. > Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not. I don't even know what that means. > But a painting, a book, a song, etc are easy to steal, especially with technology. The AI does not merely duplicate training samples. That said, effort is also unrelated to copyright.

by bogwog 4y ago

ekianjo 4y ago

> hese AI models are a new type of theft, and likewise need new types of legal protections for artists. Meh. This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models and will have to find something else to do for a living. Its not the first time in history that an occupation is obsoleted. Projectionnists in cinemas have mostly dissapeared.

bogwog 4y ago
If these models are trained on human artists, what’s going to happen if humans stop making original art? It’s obvious from the OP that even a single film is enough to add a new stylistic capability to Dall E, so even though it might have been trained on hundreds of years of human artwork, a single modern piece can still influence significantly. > This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models This makes me think that you’re lacking a fundamental understanding of what art is. The “demand” for art is never going to disappear, but these models are simply going to disrupt the supply by flooding the market with derivative works at a massive scale. The internet posed a similar threat back when it first came out, but laws were changed to combat that (e.g. the DMCA). I fail to see how this situation is any different? A country that doesn’t get on top of this issue will doom itself to cultural irrelevance in the long term, IMO.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

> Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both. Yes, but we don't have copyright laws to protect the environment. So harm to the environment is not a copyright argument. > Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not. I don't even know what that means. > But a painting, a book, a song, etc are easy to steal, especially with technology. The AI does not merely duplicate training samples. That said, effort is also unrelated to copyright.