5 ms·

Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. No book, painting, codebase, sonnet, d

Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. No book, painting, codebase, sonnet, design is theft-less. The art is the space reduction, otherwise we’d just bruteforce away.

pera 4y ago
I'm not sure what do you mean by "theft-less" but I believe you might be conflating inspiration with derivative work: Copilot can produce verbatim copies of open-source code, this would make it more similar to how some musicians sample other people's music to create new music.
wnkrshm 4y ago
So the only thing left is handiwork I guess. Engineering isn't different from art in any way, the constraints are just stricter.
Agamus 4y ago
This idea has been around for a while - why... "pretty soon"? And I'm sure I couldn't disagree with you more. Or are 'influence' and 'theft' the same now?
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  The idea has been around a while, but the legal system doesn't reflect it. I don't think it will any time soon though.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Or are 'influence' and 'theft' the same now? They have been the same for most of history. People could openly copy titles, plots, parts, phrases, etc from prior work. Same for mechanical designs. The only thing preventing them was obscurity (e.g. the inventor trying to make it hidden) not any law or ethical idea that it's bad (there wasn't any). That's how things from math to gears to tunes got better (or changed over time, in the case of art, as better/worse is subjective there). E.g. globally and historically folk music has been basically taking whatever you want from tunes and songs where everybody does the same with no "permission" asked or needed to be given. Like 4 verses but want to add a fifth or change some part? Go ahead. Want to play it exactly like you've heard it? Go ahead again. The idea of "theft" in that regard came in the last 2 or so centuries, and was enforced with artificial legal barriers and new "ethical" concepts that are neither "natural", not present for the vast majority of history (including golden ages of art production).
  - trention 4y ago
    Except that AI will not lead to "golden ages of art production" because nobody gives a sh*t about art created by AIs. And nobody will.
    - Nowado 4y ago
      That's a lot of people to dehumanize with a single swift no true Scotsman.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >because nobody gives a sht about art created by AIs. And nobody will.* You'd be surprised. Especially if people don't care/are told/whether it's "created by AI or not". Whether in "high art" or lowly pop, "generative music" (and fine art) has long been a thing. And people do attach to it (e.g. to Brian Eno's generative works made by rule based systems he programs).
      - trention 4y ago
        No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sh*t about it. The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sht about it.* Art doesn't touch people because it has cost. In fact, for ages certain types of art had no cost - poetry, public festivals, and so on. And many still don't (e.g. free punk/underground/indie/etc public performances), Soundcloud music, and so on. Most movies and series seen on TV are also ~0 (and for kids, everything is ~0, as their parents foot the bill), but they're still touched by them. >The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves. Note the loaded words "your preffered dystopia" (who says whether I prefer it or not? I merely describe what's the case. You have some ethical/political point to make). As for the answer to the question, they wont have to. People respond to the quality of the work, not who made it (and whether they used AI or chance - another popular method - or not). In fact tons of genius artists have described themselves not as the creators but as "mere conduits", and say the music/words/etc come from "elsewhere" (implying god, some muse, some spirit, etc). Especially when they fell the most "inspired" (the word itself means "visited by the spirit").
mihaic 4y ago
This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining. The Magnificent Seven for instance was a reworking of Seven Samurai, but stands on its own as an original creation. Going into a cinema and filming a picture to later put on a torrent site is not artistic reworking. The hard discussion is about what is acceptable, we all know prior art exists.
- scotty79 4y ago
  There are many differences between those acts of thievery or inspired creation however you might call it. But there are many similarities too. Fascination with the original is one. Desire to own it in one way or another is one too. Differences are in the skills, the means, the result, what was stolen and financial success that came out of the act.
- ajuc 4y ago
  > The hard discussion is about what is acceptable What if we just say "both"? Libraries were a thing for millenia and writers still wrote books. There are costs to IP laws and the benefits aren't obvious.
  - Veen 4y ago
    As a writer, the benefits are quite obvious to me.
    - js8 4y ago
      Benefits of what? Of copyright enforcement, or of sharing?
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        the grandparent comment said the benefits of IP Laws were not obvious. So it is of the benefit of the laws as they currently exist, that implies enforcement of said laws.
    - 4y ago
natly 4y ago
Unless every invention is gonna be AI generated (which is kind of a scary situation), intellectual property still needs to be a thing (otherwise people won't have incentive to invent, it'll just be stolen from them).
- pydry 4y ago
  People have an innate desire to invent and create. This is why so many people do it for zero extrinsic reward. Hell, this is the case for almost every musician. They are fed a pittance in streaming, only a bit more than most OSS developers get. This intrinsic motivation is more normally "farmed" by investors who capitalize and capture the IP value for themselves. This actually has a detrimental effect on innovation. Doing away with or watering down intellectual property protections will just take big meaty chunks out of the stock market and partly equalize wealth distribution. It'll probably spur innovation too - historically it usually has, but preserving the existing social order takes precedence over that which is why a lot is invested in persisting the myth that it aids rather than hinders innovation.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > otherwise people won't have incentive to invent, it'll just be stolen from them Citation needed. Speaking personally, I spend most of my creative energy on a project which is open source and permissively licensed to the point where I’m fine with anyone stealing it. I expect to earn negative money from it at the limit. Why do I do it? I dunno it’s fun. Can’t that be enough?
- Timwi 4y ago
  It's remarkable how many people still repeat this unsubstantiated cliché.
izacus 4y ago
> Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art If that happens, the big copyright/IP conglomerates will immediately jump on that and make sure that laws are adjusted and they get their cut of every single word and line anyone puts near their smartphones ;)
Chris2048 4y ago
Is it really "just" that? Is there no original creativity in the choices (and skill) in the blending, and choosing what (and how) to blend? Would you describe a parody, or a critique/review, as equally without original merit?
lioeters 4y ago
Recommended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop
stemlord 4y ago
>Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. That applies to everything, its even a basic law of physics, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Any layperson already knows what a remix is anyway so not sure what you think will change

pera 4y ago

I'm not sure what do you mean by "theft-less" but I believe you might be conflating inspiration with derivative work: Copilot can produce verbatim copies of open-source code, this would make it more similar to how some musicians sample other people's music to create new music.

wnkrshm 4y ago

So the only thing left is handiwork I guess. Engineering isn't different from art in any way, the constraints are just stricter.

Agamus 4y ago

This idea has been around for a while - why... "pretty soon"? And I'm sure I couldn't disagree with you more. Or are 'influence' and 'theft' the same now?

TremendousJudge 4y ago
The idea has been around a while, but the legal system doesn't reflect it. I don't think it will any time soon though.
coldtea 4y ago
>Or are 'influence' and 'theft' the same now? They have been the same for most of history. People could openly copy titles, plots, parts, phrases, etc from prior work. Same for mechanical designs. The only thing preventing them was obscurity (e.g. the inventor trying to make it hidden) not any law or ethical idea that it's bad (there wasn't any). That's how things from math to gears to tunes got better (or changed over time, in the case of art, as better/worse is subjective there). E.g. globally and historically folk music has been basically taking whatever you want from tunes and songs where everybody does the same with no "permission" asked or needed to be given. Like 4 verses but want to add a fifth or change some part? Go ahead. Want to play it exactly like you've heard it? Go ahead again. The idea of "theft" in that regard came in the last 2 or so centuries, and was enforced with artificial legal barriers and new "ethical" concepts that are neither "natural", not present for the vast majority of history (including golden ages of art production).
- trention 4y ago
  Except that AI will not lead to "golden ages of art production" because nobody gives a sh*t about art created by AIs. And nobody will.
  - Nowado 4y ago
    That's a lot of people to dehumanize with a single swift no true Scotsman.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >because nobody gives a sht about art created by AIs. And nobody will.* You'd be surprised. Especially if people don't care/are told/whether it's "created by AI or not". Whether in "high art" or lowly pop, "generative music" (and fine art) has long been a thing. And people do attach to it (e.g. to Brian Eno's generative works made by rule based systems he programs).
    - trention 4y ago
      No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sh*t about it. The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sht about it.* Art doesn't touch people because it has cost. In fact, for ages certain types of art had no cost - poetry, public festivals, and so on. And many still don't (e.g. free punk/underground/indie/etc public performances), Soundcloud music, and so on. Most movies and series seen on TV are also ~0 (and for kids, everything is ~0, as their parents foot the bill), but they're still touched by them. >The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves. Note the loaded words "your preffered dystopia" (who says whether I prefer it or not? I merely describe what's the case. You have some ethical/political point to make). As for the answer to the question, they wont have to. People respond to the quality of the work, not who made it (and whether they used AI or chance - another popular method - or not). In fact tons of genius artists have described themselves not as the creators but as "mere conduits", and say the music/words/etc come from "elsewhere" (implying god, some muse, some spirit, etc). Especially when they fell the most "inspired" (the word itself means "visited by the spirit").

mihaic 4y ago

This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining. The Magnificent Seven for instance was a reworking of Seven Samurai, but stands on its own as an original creation. Going into a cinema and filming a picture to later put on a torrent site is not artistic reworking. The hard discussion is about what is acceptable, we all know prior art exists.

scotty79 4y ago
There are many differences between those acts of thievery or inspired creation however you might call it. But there are many similarities too. Fascination with the original is one. Desire to own it in one way or another is one too. Differences are in the skills, the means, the result, what was stolen and financial success that came out of the act.
ajuc 4y ago
> The hard discussion is about what is acceptable What if we just say "both"? Libraries were a thing for millenia and writers still wrote books. There are costs to IP laws and the benefits aren't obvious.
- Veen 4y ago
  As a writer, the benefits are quite obvious to me.
  - js8 4y ago
    Benefits of what? Of copyright enforcement, or of sharing?
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      the grandparent comment said the benefits of IP Laws were not obvious. So it is of the benefit of the laws as they currently exist, that implies enforcement of said laws.
  - 4y ago

natly 4y ago

Unless every invention is gonna be AI generated (which is kind of a scary situation), intellectual property still needs to be a thing (otherwise people won't have incentive to invent, it'll just be stolen from them).

pydry 4y ago
People have an innate desire to invent and create. This is why so many people do it for zero extrinsic reward. Hell, this is the case for almost every musician. They are fed a pittance in streaming, only a bit more than most OSS developers get. This intrinsic motivation is more normally "farmed" by investors who capitalize and capture the IP value for themselves. This actually has a detrimental effect on innovation. Doing away with or watering down intellectual property protections will just take big meaty chunks out of the stock market and partly equalize wealth distribution. It'll probably spur innovation too - historically it usually has, but preserving the existing social order takes precedence over that which is why a lot is invested in persisting the myth that it aids rather than hinders innovation.
ModernMech 4y ago
> otherwise people won't have incentive to invent, it'll just be stolen from them Citation needed. Speaking personally, I spend most of my creative energy on a project which is open source and permissively licensed to the point where I’m fine with anyone stealing it. I expect to earn negative money from it at the limit. Why do I do it? I dunno it’s fun. Can’t that be enough?
Timwi 4y ago
It's remarkable how many people still repeat this unsubstantiated cliché.

izacus 4y ago

> Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art If that happens, the big copyright/IP conglomerates will immediately jump on that and make sure that laws are adjusted and they get their cut of every single word and line anyone puts near their smartphones ;)

Chris2048 4y ago

Is it really "just" that? Is there no original creativity in the choices (and skill) in the blending, and choosing what (and how) to blend? Would you describe a parody, or a critique/review, as equally without original merit?

lioeters 4y ago

Recommended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop

stemlord 4y ago

>Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. That applies to everything, its even a basic law of physics, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Any layperson already knows what a remix is anyway so not sure what you think will change