11 ms·
Here's why I believe it is inevitable... It's already out there. On people's local computers and soon their mobile devices. People are tinkering with it at war
by fleddr 4y ago
Here's why I believe it is inevitable...
It's already out there. On people's local computers and soon their mobile devices. People are tinkering with it at warp speed. This point addresses that it technically cannot be stopped.
I don't expect it to be possible to detect that the art is AI-generated. This becomes further impossible when using a personal input image as well as many follow-up edits or composite works. It blends into normal image creation. The only way to prove that it's not AI-generated is to record in-progress "human art" as is sometimes done in art contests, but this isn't reasonable to legally require of every single piece of art to be created.
You can't enforce what you can't detect.
- bugfix-66 4y agoThe companies that pay artists' salaries won't be willing to secretly break the law to save money. Microsoft won't legally be able to continue its abuse of GitHub. Copilot will be dead. OpenAI and Stability will not legally be able to profit from large-scale intellectual property theft. All these violations will end. These are the most significant digits. The residual amateur piracy doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if random guy gets some leet neural net warez and uses it to make his desktop wallpaper.
- fleddr 4y agoFirst, you didn't address my point that you cannot detect AI output. I already have Stability running on my PC. I generate an image with it. How do you know the output comes from Stability? Answer that, please. Second, a worldwide draconian ban on AI image training and generation just isn't going to happen. Very few legal things are coordinated worldwide, and copyright law is incredibly low on the list. Even training without consent can be addressed. Google trained some of their AI from Google Photos. Which they made free for unlimited use so that us fools would produce billions of images, accept the terms we don't even read and voila: AI legally trained.
- stevewatson301 4y agoJust because you can buy a knife to kill someone discreetly, doesn't mean that we should just give up on the idea of making murder illegal. Of course "killing someone" and "copying someone's artwork" are at different levels, however, I'm sure artists would beg to differ.
- 314 4y agoI don't think there is any work on that yet, but if the model is known it should be possible to derive the probability that a particular image is the output from it.
- wnkrshm 4y agoIt's inevitable that someone comes up with methods to detect generated images, since a lot of political (Edit: and financial) capital hinges on that. If AI image generation is inevitable, then methods to analyze images wrt. known generators are even more inevitable.
- CrimsonRain 4y ago> GAN And your point is invalid in long term.
- nickthegreek 4y agoIve produced over 5000 images on my local SD install. Currently, there are many dead giveaway if you produced the art with it. Specifically around hands, feet, holding things, pupil directions. Of course these things will get better with time, but currently there are many things that exposure generative art.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- macrolime 4y agoI've noticed there's a lot of newly created luddite accounts. Reddit luddite brigade?
- robterrell 4y agoI'm sure I've still got a bunch of MP3 files from Napster on a hard drive somewhere, but yeah, that genie was put back in the bottle. This one can too.
- deadbeeves 4y agoAnd as we all know, music piracy over the Internet ended the day Napster stopped working. /s
- shadowgovt 4y agoIt was put back in the bottle by Apple legitimating the piracy business model by cutting desks with the major labels to digitize their music. The analogue here is AI art week be legitimized, and the artists who profit will be the ones who let their work be used as input for a cut of the profits. And nobody will be able to compete with them, and the owners of the machine will be able to set the profit rate as they choose. ... That does sound like a new stable equilibrium, actually.
- irrational 4y agoHow was it put back in the bottle? The Pirate Bay still exists. Bittorrent tools still exist. Name any song and I'm sure we can find it.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoAs a society we have gone through great pains to protect the software developer's incompe and job, source code was given copyright and patent protection - no other industry gets both protections at once. Now you seek to deny others such protection while taking advantage of it yourself.
- deadbeeves 4y agoLet's not kid ourselves. Those protections exist for the benefit of corporations, not software developers. If those corporations could have robots write the software and copyright that software and patent it, they absolutely would.
- stevewatson301 4y agoIronically, the high salaries the software industries is able to pay is precisely because of the copyright protection afforded that prevents the value of the software from being diluted by way of rampant copying. This is also the same reason due to which open source projects often struggle with funding, and why many databases (among other OSS software) are moving towards stricter licenses such as the AGPL.
- deadbeeves 4y agoI don't think so. The highest paying companies don't distribute software, they provide access to a remote service. Even if copyright didn't exist, you couldn't copy the Google executable.
- stevewatson301 4y agoYou're making my point though. The fact that Google is successful, in part, is because of the fact that you can't copy their trade secrets and methods; which is one reason no solid competitor has come up to challenge Google. (There are infrastructure challenges as well, but this thread is about intellectual property.)
- noobermin 4y agoNapster was on millions of machines and now it isn't. It's like you skipped that part.
- sdwr 4y agoTrue, but the post-Napster media negotiations very much priced it in. Nobody is paying $10 per CD anymore.
- ISL 4y agoLooks like Taylor Swift's new release on CD is $14 at Target right now and $12 for digital download. They're not paying $10, they're paying more.
- politician 4y agoAccording to this site [1], $14 in 2022 Dollars is $7.19 in 1995 Dollars. So, about $3 less. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (Who knows if that site is reliable though, the point is inflation.)
- tomrod 4y agoNapster has single points of failure and future p2p had poisoned seeds for tracking. Stable Diffusion is math and cannot be stopped now the toothpaste is out. You can attempt to regulate, assign draconian requirements by force of law, but ultimately these are as unenforceable as regulating that pi=3. Ironically, what could help is NFT type tech. Signed with a private artist key, your copy is "original". Even if knockoff generative copies are produced, the digitally signed produced-bys are still authentic.
- deadbeeves 4y ago>Ironically, what could help is NFT type tech. Signed with a private artist key, your copy is "original". Even if knockoff generative copies are produced, the digitally signed produced-bys are still authentic. That solves a completely different problem, though. I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is one of false attribution, where people are claiming generated images are the work of a particular person. What's being discussed is artists having less work because people generate art computationally rather than commission artists to do it.