7 ms·

It also apparently copies the artist’s logo. In a way, the “it just does what humans do but faster” argument is starting to follow the “a number can’t be illeg

It also apparently copies the artist’s logo. In a way, the “it just does what humans do but faster” argument is starting to follow the “a number can’t be illegal” trajectory.

cercatrova 4y ago
Either way I support AI art and AI in other fields. Just because artists are mad it's gonna take their jobs does not seem like a legitimate reason to halt human progress. It's just inevitable the way things are going.
- Bjorkbat 4y ago
  Just because some trend feels inevitable doesn’t mean we shouldn’t oppose it. We shouldn’t be beholden to the march of technology like it’s some force of nature that we are powerless to resist.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    Can you give examples of when technology was successfully rolled back for social reasons (not because it was found to have dramatic side effects, like asbestos eg) and that didn't coincide with a massive drop in HDI (like the fall of the Roman empire)?
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      Anti-WMD proliferation comes to mind, but perhaps that's a special case.
      - t_mann 4y ago
        I wouldn't call that a successful roll-back unfortunately, they've been somewhat contained at best, but they're still being produced and more powerful than ever. Those discussions aside, what I meant by social reasons was people wanting to see some tech go away because it's automating jobs.
- CSSer 4y ago
  What progress? We’re bruteforcing solutions without any way to learn from then. ML eliminates serendipity. I’m not strictly anti-ML. Horses for courses and all that, but I’ve got to admit I get weird, “The humans stopped learned and the computers started,” sci-fi vibes sometimes.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >ML eliminates serendipity. This is a statement that is pretty quickly disproven if you actually pay attention to the generated art. Lately I've been seeing TikTok videos where people are using DALL-E to create "new aesthetics" - "vampwave", "neon apocalypse", etc.
- superchroma 4y ago
  Whilst automation in textiles, agriculture, etc. brought measurable benefits to society, this will have few as it stands. I can think of a dozen things that are worth automating before this. This leaves me suspecting that projects like DALL-E are gunning for Shutterstock's $500 million annual profit and that's it.
  - orangecat 4y ago
    This leaves me suspecting that projects like DALL-E are gunning for Shutterstock's $500 million annual profit and that's it. Do you think AlphaGo was motivated by a burning desire to discover better board game strategies?
    - superchroma 4y ago
      Elsewhere in this thread, people celebrate AI for some reasons. I'm not so impressed by the tech when the goal is just profit without some sort of ethical upside.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Stealing people’s work to serve as your training set is not human progress. Sounds like the AI model should be paying royalties to every affected artist for the right to sample their work.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    The art that was trained on was all Creative Commons apparently, so perhaps artists should understand licenses first before giving their work a permissive license.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      All CC licenses, other than the “CC0 public domain dedication”, require attribution, but CC themselves have taken what I’d consider to be an ass-backwards position on the matter: > At CC, we believe that, as a matter of copyright law, the use of works to train AI should be considered non-infringing by default, assuming that access to the copyright works was lawful at the point of input. https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-content-be-used-to-train-ai-it-depends/ https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-co...
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        >backwards position It's not backwards. It's the same as if a human artist studied it. Backwards would be thinking that any creative work you make is a derivative work of many creative works that you've seen in the past which you aren't copying from.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        > It's the same as if a human artist studied it. It’s not a human artist, and it can only regurgitate mash-ups of work stolen from others.
    - egypturnash 4y ago
      Where is this said? I'm looking at the collection of artists this site is happily offering to rip off (https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo/1 https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo...) and there's a lot of people with long careers making copyrighted work. I really can't imagine finding a ton of CC work by Bernie Wrightson or Wayne Barlowe or Brom or Junji Ito, for instance.
- egypturnash 4y ago
  Please save this comment to refer to when an iteration of Copilot starts to make you truly worried for the future of your career. Thanks in advance.
  - orangecat 4y ago
    Yeah, and we should really do something about those abominations like Excel and Python that let ordinary people create programs without hiring us to do it the right way.
    - egypturnash 4y ago
      There is a big difference between "this is a tool that makes some things easier" and "this is definitely endangering the skill I spent a lifetime learning". You will know it when you see it.
      - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        There is no big difference. The steam engine put 90% of the world out of agricultural work. That is a big difference. Now you can buy strawberries all year round and drink coconut water in Alaska. Nobody will care where their art comes from any more than you care about how your food's field was plowed; and all their lives will be better for it.
        egypturnash 4y ago
        There is a huge difference in how you will feel when the tool that might put you out of work shows up. Keep your comment somewhere. Come back to it when you look at a new tool that promises to merrily trample on your entire field’s income and provide an endless source of “usable, I guess” substitutes. Let it provide solace as you stare into a future with no room for the craft you’ve spent a lifetime honing.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    Yes, many of us will turn into cowards when automation starts to touch our work, but that would not prove this sentiment incorrect - only that we're cowards.
- t_mann 4y ago
  This. People thought that photography would make artists obsolete, then Picasso came round (simplifying here, ofc). Who knows what crazy creative things humans will do in the presence of those tools?

It also apparently copies the artist’s logo. In a way, the “it just does what humans do but faster” argument is starting to follow the “a number can’t be illegal” trajectory.

cercatrova 4y ago

Either way I support AI art and AI in other fields. Just because artists are mad it's gonna take their jobs does not seem like a legitimate reason to halt human progress. It's just inevitable the way things are going.

Bjorkbat 4y ago
Just because some trend feels inevitable doesn’t mean we shouldn’t oppose it. We shouldn’t be beholden to the march of technology like it’s some force of nature that we are powerless to resist.
- t_mann 4y ago
  Can you give examples of when technology was successfully rolled back for social reasons (not because it was found to have dramatic side effects, like asbestos eg) and that didn't coincide with a massive drop in HDI (like the fall of the Roman empire)?
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    Anti-WMD proliferation comes to mind, but perhaps that's a special case.
    - t_mann 4y ago
      I wouldn't call that a successful roll-back unfortunately, they've been somewhat contained at best, but they're still being produced and more powerful than ever. Those discussions aside, what I meant by social reasons was people wanting to see some tech go away because it's automating jobs.
CSSer 4y ago
What progress? We’re bruteforcing solutions without any way to learn from then. ML eliminates serendipity. I’m not strictly anti-ML. Horses for courses and all that, but I’ve got to admit I get weird, “The humans stopped learned and the computers started,” sci-fi vibes sometimes.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >ML eliminates serendipity. This is a statement that is pretty quickly disproven if you actually pay attention to the generated art. Lately I've been seeing TikTok videos where people are using DALL-E to create "new aesthetics" - "vampwave", "neon apocalypse", etc.
superchroma 4y ago
Whilst automation in textiles, agriculture, etc. brought measurable benefits to society, this will have few as it stands. I can think of a dozen things that are worth automating before this. This leaves me suspecting that projects like DALL-E are gunning for Shutterstock's $500 million annual profit and that's it.
- orangecat 4y ago
  This leaves me suspecting that projects like DALL-E are gunning for Shutterstock's $500 million annual profit and that's it. Do you think AlphaGo was motivated by a burning desire to discover better board game strategies?
  - superchroma 4y ago
    Elsewhere in this thread, people celebrate AI for some reasons. I'm not so impressed by the tech when the goal is just profit without some sort of ethical upside.
teakettle42 4y ago
Stealing people’s work to serve as your training set is not human progress. Sounds like the AI model should be paying royalties to every affected artist for the right to sample their work.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  The art that was trained on was all Creative Commons apparently, so perhaps artists should understand licenses first before giving their work a permissive license.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    All CC licenses, other than the “CC0 public domain dedication”, require attribution, but CC themselves have taken what I’d consider to be an ass-backwards position on the matter: > At CC, we believe that, as a matter of copyright law, the use of works to train AI should be considered non-infringing by default, assuming that access to the copyright works was lawful at the point of input. https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-content-be-used-to-train-ai-it-depends/ https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-co...
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >backwards position It's not backwards. It's the same as if a human artist studied it. Backwards would be thinking that any creative work you make is a derivative work of many creative works that you've seen in the past which you aren't copying from.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > It's the same as if a human artist studied it. It’s not a human artist, and it can only regurgitate mash-ups of work stolen from others.
  - egypturnash 4y ago
    Where is this said? I'm looking at the collection of artists this site is happily offering to rip off (https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo/1 https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo...) and there's a lot of people with long careers making copyrighted work. I really can't imagine finding a ton of CC work by Bernie Wrightson or Wayne Barlowe or Brom or Junji Ito, for instance.
egypturnash 4y ago
Please save this comment to refer to when an iteration of Copilot starts to make you truly worried for the future of your career. Thanks in advance.
- orangecat 4y ago
  Yeah, and we should really do something about those abominations like Excel and Python that let ordinary people create programs without hiring us to do it the right way.
  - egypturnash 4y ago
    There is a big difference between "this is a tool that makes some things easier" and "this is definitely endangering the skill I spent a lifetime learning". You will know it when you see it.
    - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
      There is no big difference. The steam engine put 90% of the world out of agricultural work. That is a big difference. Now you can buy strawberries all year round and drink coconut water in Alaska. Nobody will care where their art comes from any more than you care about how your food's field was plowed; and all their lives will be better for it.
      - egypturnash 4y ago
        There is a huge difference in how you will feel when the tool that might put you out of work shows up. Keep your comment somewhere. Come back to it when you look at a new tool that promises to merrily trample on your entire field’s income and provide an endless source of “usable, I guess” substitutes. Let it provide solace as you stare into a future with no room for the craft you’ve spent a lifetime honing.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  Yes, many of us will turn into cowards when automation starts to touch our work, but that would not prove this sentiment incorrect - only that we're cowards.
t_mann 4y ago
This. People thought that photography would make artists obsolete, then Picasso came round (simplifying here, ofc). Who knows what crazy creative things humans will do in the presence of those tools?