6 ms·

This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fr

This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and commoditizing it. > So many artists styles could have gone viral and actually bring those artists some work I’ve seen this sentiment, but it does not match the reality we see play out on the web every day. The amount of literal content stealing and “creative reposting” that happens with absolutely zero attribution to the actual artist is quite extensive. It makes no sense to me that the introduction of an AI tool would suddenly solve the problem of attribution instead of just make it far easier to steal content while making it harder to detect or take action against such theft.

hooverd 4y ago
On top of that, deliberately training models to copy an artists work and antagonizing the artist about it.
scotty79 4y ago
> This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. > As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and commoditizing it. I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself. AI gives an artist a ticket to a lottery that can strongly boost their name without doing any additional service. > The amount of literal content stealing and “creative reposting” that happens with absolutely zero attribution to the actual artist is quite extensive. I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI. As for prompts that don't mention specific authors ... you shouldn't kid yourself that AI won't be able to completely naturally recreate your style from styles similar to yours even it it never seen yours. After all that's what you did to create your style. You created a variation on similar styles you saw during your education as an artist. > ... just make it far easier to steal content while making it harder to detect or take action against such theft. steal, theft ... what do artists actually loose in those brazen robberies? Copyright conglomerates created language that doesn't reflect reality. But it reflects most primitive human instincts evolved in the world of scarcity not abundance.
- hooverd 4y ago
  AI "artists" are commissioners in my view. If the learning and creating is done by the model, the model is the rights holder. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    But AI companies are paying AI artists with electricity and computing power so they are buying copyright from AI artists. ;)
- haswell 4y ago
  > I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. This still doesn't give you standing to speak on behalf of artists, and "because I know better than lawyers do" is generally a problematic form of argument. It continues to ignore the key people that matter: the individuals with the creativity and skills to create the content that started this whole IP conundrum in the first place. > I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself. This is a very one-dimensional view of what makes art, and how the broader community plays a role. I have no illusions about where I stand as an individual photographer among the multitude of photographers in terms of raw technical talent and capability. But I'd argue that you are deeply misinterpreting the implications of that reality, and imposing your own definition of value on a category of human expression that is by definition deeply subjective and far more complex than a simple formula of exposure and conversion rate with some resulting monetary return. > I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI. This assumes the only reason I would be upset is because of lost sales. I take photos for the love of it. I don't currently sell them. If someone else starts making money on my work, it takes on a different meaning entirely. And even if I turned this into a business, "lost sales" is still only one of multiple factors. Regarding prompts, how is attribution built in? Nothing requires an individual to reveal their prompts, currently. There are AI-art sharing communities emerging where prompts are held tight, because the authoring of the prompt is the only thing the "AI artist" brings to the table. Even if prompts were universally provided, that doesn't solve the issue of permission, or imply that this is automatically an acceptable form of attribution to all artists overnight. When video game companies use stolen artwork, they are ridiculed and derided for blatantly profiting from the work of individuals. Even if it was an honest mistake, this kind of misuse is always a headline. And yet, when we talk about a system that unlocks a seemingly limitless portal through which the life's work of every artist is made systematically available to the entire world without limit, with no consultation with the original creators, those worries about unattributed benefit just disappear. I'm curious how you feel about the video game scenario?

hooverd 4y ago

On top of that, deliberately training models to copy an artists work and antagonizing the artist about it.

scotty79 4y ago

> This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted. I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. > As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and commoditizing it. I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself. AI gives an artist a ticket to a lottery that can strongly boost their name without doing any additional service. > The amount of literal content stealing and “creative reposting” that happens with absolutely zero attribution to the actual artist is quite extensive. I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI. As for prompts that don't mention specific authors ... you shouldn't kid yourself that AI won't be able to completely naturally recreate your style from styles similar to yours even it it never seen yours. After all that's what you did to create your style. You created a variation on similar styles you saw during your education as an artist. > ... just make it far easier to steal content while making it harder to detect or take action against such theft. steal, theft ... what do artists actually loose in those brazen robberies? Copyright conglomerates created language that doesn't reflect reality. But it reflects most primitive human instincts evolved in the world of scarcity not abundance.

hooverd 4y ago
AI "artists" are commissioners in my view. If the learning and creating is done by the model, the model is the rights holder. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
- scotty79 4y ago
  But AI companies are paying AI artists with electricity and computing power so they are buying copyright from AI artists. ;)
haswell 4y ago
> I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. This still doesn't give you standing to speak on behalf of artists, and "because I know better than lawyers do" is generally a problematic form of argument. It continues to ignore the key people that matter: the individuals with the creativity and skills to create the content that started this whole IP conundrum in the first place. > I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself. This is a very one-dimensional view of what makes art, and how the broader community plays a role. I have no illusions about where I stand as an individual photographer among the multitude of photographers in terms of raw technical talent and capability. But I'd argue that you are deeply misinterpreting the implications of that reality, and imposing your own definition of value on a category of human expression that is by definition deeply subjective and far more complex than a simple formula of exposure and conversion rate with some resulting monetary return. > I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI. This assumes the only reason I would be upset is because of lost sales. I take photos for the love of it. I don't currently sell them. If someone else starts making money on my work, it takes on a different meaning entirely. And even if I turned this into a business, "lost sales" is still only one of multiple factors. Regarding prompts, how is attribution built in? Nothing requires an individual to reveal their prompts, currently. There are AI-art sharing communities emerging where prompts are held tight, because the authoring of the prompt is the only thing the "AI artist" brings to the table. Even if prompts were universally provided, that doesn't solve the issue of permission, or imply that this is automatically an acceptable form of attribution to all artists overnight. When video game companies use stolen artwork, they are ridiculed and derided for blatantly profiting from the work of individuals. Even if it was an honest mistake, this kind of misuse is always a headline. And yet, when we talk about a system that unlocks a seemingly limitless portal through which the life's work of every artist is made systematically available to the entire world without limit, with no consultation with the original creators, those worries about unattributed benefit just disappear. I'm curious how you feel about the video game scenario?