4 ms·

Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of phot

Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of photoshop, they're not trying to disprove a point about paying salaries to the devs, and I am sure you knew that.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".
- makoto12 4y ago
  beautifully put
- newswasboring 4y ago
  This kind of wording reminds me of a very old (probably outdated) argument about theft of digital goods. In meatspace when you steal something you are depriving someone of a thing. If I steal your biscuit, you don't have the biscuit. But if I copy a picture of the biscuit you are still left with your own picture, perfect and identical in every way. If I'm not reselling that image to everyone, you lost on that one sale. I wonder if openAI goes and pays retail price for each image they used, would this discussion finally end?
legutierr 4y ago
No, your perspective on this is all wrong. The outrage about AI art is not about how it empowers its users. Rather, the problem is that these systems only exists today because of the involuntary contributions of the very same people who are likely to be put out of business. It really is about the how the contributors to these systems are being treated. The coders that contributed to Photoshop are analogous to the artists whose work was used to train these models. The difference between them is that the former gave their consent to the contribution, and the latter did not.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  So, my perspective on this is all wrong, despite the fact that the original poster wrote, pretty damn specifically, "Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts." That's it, that's the entire post. Never mind the "stolen artwork" argument, you still have people upset about "automating creativity". So, like I said, it's one part of it.
  - legutierr 4y ago
    My mistake. Your perspective is not all wrong. You're just focusing on the wrong thing.

Quarrelsome 4y ago

> Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".

makoto12 4y ago
beautifully put
newswasboring 4y ago
This kind of wording reminds me of a very old (probably outdated) argument about theft of digital goods. In meatspace when you steal something you are depriving someone of a thing. If I steal your biscuit, you don't have the biscuit. But if I copy a picture of the biscuit you are still left with your own picture, perfect and identical in every way. If I'm not reselling that image to everyone, you lost on that one sale. I wonder if openAI goes and pays retail price for each image they used, would this discussion finally end?

legutierr 4y ago

No, your perspective on this is all wrong. The outrage about AI art is not about how it empowers its users. Rather, the problem is that these systems only exists today because of the involuntary contributions of the very same people who are likely to be put out of business. It really is about the how the contributors to these systems are being treated. The coders that contributed to Photoshop are analogous to the artists whose work was used to train these models. The difference between them is that the former gave their consent to the contribution, and the latter did not.

scrollaway 4y ago
So, my perspective on this is all wrong, despite the fact that the original poster wrote, pretty damn specifically, "Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts." That's it, that's the entire post. Never mind the "stolen artwork" argument, you still have people upset about "automating creativity". So, like I said, it's one part of it.
- legutierr 4y ago
  My mistake. Your perspective is not all wrong. You're just focusing on the wrong thing.