4 ms·

In a word scale. Scale matters. How is one locust different to a million? How is hand copying a manuscript (highly controlled in medieval Europe) different to a

by dbspin 4y ago

In a word scale. Scale matters. How is one locust different to a million? How is hand copying a manuscript (highly controlled in medieval Europe) different to a printing press. These models will and are already having a profound economic impact on the creative sectors they mimic. Whether existing law applies is a specialist question. But they're not remotely comparable from a pragmatic perspective with pieces manually created by individuals taking 'inspiration' from existing work. A closer parallel would be the industrialisation of painting duplication which is done in Chinese 'artist villages' like Dafen. It's a strange kind of equanimity to shrug while others lose their livelihood and have their self expression systematically duplicated and commodified. No kidding they're furious. That you can't empathise or find it 'naive' is your issue. What attitude would be more understandable? Resignation? Calmly retraining to work in a call centre?

oehpr 4y ago
>A closer parallel would be the industrialisation of painting duplication But they directly reproduce the source material. AI art they clearly does not. The luddites seem a better parallel when it comes to scale. Where a machine comes along capable of producing in much higher quantities and in much greater efficiencies. Or perhaps photography? Also a fear of scale. For a long time photographers were not considered artists. And there were calls to tamp down on this innovation for the harm it would cause. I don't suppose anyone back then could imagine now how photography is used. Perhaps they would feel it much better that a tiny artist quickly sketch out the thing my phone was looking at.
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  AI art they clearly does not. It does not 1-1 recreate source material, but if we didn't have human artists anymore and replaced them all with the current stock of AI we would have no more developing art movements. It is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not, and it does not understand what humans would find interesting, only what humans have already made. This makes it a pretty good tool for some amateurish applications or places where quality isn't important, but it is not a 1-1 copy of a human capable of making human art.
  - oehpr 4y ago
    >it is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not The work I've seen manipulating, weilding, and modifying this new tool, has been very creative In painting, reprompting, texture and uv map generation, dreambooth and dedicated fine tuning. Integrating these workflows into human directed procedures to produce in hours what would take days, sometimes months, sometimes not even within the scope of human capability. If you think the only thing here is people jibbering at a black box and posting 512*512 images, I can see why dumping the entire thing would seem reasonable.
- odessacubbage 4y ago
  photography is actually a very good example of how this talking point breaks down. there are a great deal of laws and social codes around where you can and cannot film and take photographs. photography is explicitly disallowed in most museums and art galleries. filming in public requires permits and waivers in many places, especially if the filming is done with a commercial interest. 'but how is capturing an image with a camera lens any different from capturing it with my retina? both are simply methods of refracting light and translating that information into a storage medium. the camera is just remembering* like a human remembers and we mustn't let luddites regulate this revolutionary technology or we'll impede the progress of the camera becoming an even more better rememberer'* the social ramifications of the camera are still being reckoned with to this day and yes, cameras very highly regulated compared to pretty much any other human method of expression or transcription, in fact we are still coming up with new things you cannot film eg the recent crop of revenge porn laws.
  - tester457 4y ago
    I had the same thoughts. Finally, someone has put into words the logical end of the trite photography analogy. It's a refreshingly sane perspective to see in this thread.
- inkcapmushroom 4y ago
  >AI art they clearly does not. https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1588915427018559490 https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1588915427018559490 I would think these are close enough that any human that produced that output could be claimed to have plagiarized.
  - oehpr 4y ago
    ugh, how tedious. Famous images prevelant in the dataset that are trained against many times and the directly requested are produced as is, because that's litterally what was requested and the model was trained against them. There's only one way to draw The Mona Lisa. These AI's are not used for this purpose, nor is any of this core to their functioning. And I have to assume you know that.
stale2002 4y ago
> In a word scale. Scale matters > to shrug while others lose their livelihood and have their self expression systematically duplicated and commodified. The same exact arguments were made when the camera was invented. In order to be consistent, you would have to argue that the camera should have been banned to protect painters. > That you can't empathise or find it 'naive' Oh we understand. We just know that it is the exact same argument, that ludites make every single time a new technology is invented, that increases efficiency. It is always the same argument repeated over and over again. And if those arguments weren't good in the past, we aren't going to listen to defeated arguments now.

by dbspin 4y ago

oehpr 4y ago

>A closer parallel would be the industrialisation of painting duplication But they directly reproduce the source material. AI art they clearly does not. The luddites seem a better parallel when it comes to scale. Where a machine comes along capable of producing in much higher quantities and in much greater efficiencies. Or perhaps photography? Also a fear of scale. For a long time photographers were not considered artists. And there were calls to tamp down on this innovation for the harm it would cause. I don't suppose anyone back then could imagine now how photography is used. Perhaps they would feel it much better that a tiny artist quickly sketch out the thing my phone was looking at.

TchoBeer 4y ago
AI art they clearly does not. It does not 1-1 recreate source material, but if we didn't have human artists anymore and replaced them all with the current stock of AI we would have no more developing art movements. It is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not, and it does not understand what humans would find interesting, only what humans have already made. This makes it a pretty good tool for some amateurish applications or places where quality isn't important, but it is not a 1-1 copy of a human capable of making human art.
- oehpr 4y ago
  >it is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not The work I've seen manipulating, weilding, and modifying this new tool, has been very creative In painting, reprompting, texture and uv map generation, dreambooth and dedicated fine tuning. Integrating these workflows into human directed procedures to produce in hours what would take days, sometimes months, sometimes not even within the scope of human capability. If you think the only thing here is people jibbering at a black box and posting 512*512 images, I can see why dumping the entire thing would seem reasonable.
odessacubbage 4y ago
photography is actually a very good example of how this talking point breaks down. there are a great deal of laws and social codes around where you can and cannot film and take photographs. photography is explicitly disallowed in most museums and art galleries. filming in public requires permits and waivers in many places, especially if the filming is done with a commercial interest. 'but how is capturing an image with a camera lens any different from capturing it with my retina? both are simply methods of refracting light and translating that information into a storage medium. the camera is just remembering* like a human remembers and we mustn't let luddites regulate this revolutionary technology or we'll impede the progress of the camera becoming an even more better rememberer'* the social ramifications of the camera are still being reckoned with to this day and yes, cameras very highly regulated compared to pretty much any other human method of expression or transcription, in fact we are still coming up with new things you cannot film eg the recent crop of revenge porn laws.
- tester457 4y ago
  I had the same thoughts. Finally, someone has put into words the logical end of the trite photography analogy. It's a refreshingly sane perspective to see in this thread.
inkcapmushroom 4y ago
>AI art they clearly does not. https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1588915427018559490 https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1588915427018559490 I would think these are close enough that any human that produced that output could be claimed to have plagiarized.
- oehpr 4y ago
  ugh, how tedious. Famous images prevelant in the dataset that are trained against many times and the directly requested are produced as is, because that's litterally what was requested and the model was trained against them. There's only one way to draw The Mona Lisa. These AI's are not used for this purpose, nor is any of this core to their functioning. And I have to assume you know that.

stale2002 4y ago

> In a word scale. Scale matters > to shrug while others lose their livelihood and have their self expression systematically duplicated and commodified. The same exact arguments were made when the camera was invented. In order to be consistent, you would have to argue that the camera should have been banned to protect painters. > That you can't empathise or find it 'naive' Oh we understand. We just know that it is the exact same argument, that ludites make every single time a new technology is invented, that increases efficiency. It is always the same argument repeated over and over again. And if those arguments weren't good in the past, we aren't going to listen to defeated arguments now.