4 ms·
Personally, I'm on-board with protecting artists incomes, however, I think there's a middle-ground. First, I'd like to correct a fact you omitted: Napster, Lim
by kodah 4y ago
Personally, I'm on-board with protecting artists incomes, however, I think there's a middle-ground.
First, I'd like to correct a fact you omitted: Napster, Limewire and the like didn't come out of nowhere. They were created because artists and their recording companies forced consumers to buy entire CDs at inflated prices that kept rising. Now, what they got in return from their consumers after that wasn't fair either.
I don't think making AI generation illegal for everyone makes sense. That's how you get the Metallica's of the world bank-rolling professional grifters to hold people's grandmother's financially hostage.
I do think it makes sense to bar AI generated products from making money if the works used to train it did not belong to that company or individual. If you create a program using CoPilot, you should not earn money. If you make a comic using Stable Diffusion, you don't deserve money. This keeps the power players in check while allowing artists paths to use these AIs if they own their own work outright. Imagine if you could train CoPilot on your own code and then use it to help you. That to me sounds like the framing for a new and responsible form of innovation.
- _c3ag 4y agoyeah! i think AI tools must be transparent of the input, period. it feels too unfair leading a new art style and simply be copied with machine precision and speed… opting to not contribute to the neural network database should be a thing but i do not know how reverse engineering of output can be done
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- visarga 4y agoYes, there should be opt outs for ML training. They could take many forms - robots.txt rules, special HTML tags, http headers, plain text tags or a centralised registry. You can take any work out of the training set without diminishing the end result. But doing so would mean being left out of the new art movement. Your name will not be conjured, your style not replicated, your artistic influence thinning out. If an artist wants her works to have the fate of BBC archives, that removed millions of hours of radio and tv shows from the internet, then go ahead. The historic BBC content was never shared, liked, commented or had any influence since the internet became a thing. A cultural suicide to protect ancient copyrights.