3 ms·

> If AI people were forcing artist to create new art and paying them with the promise of exposure in their generated works I'll be completely on your side. Howe

> If AI people were forcing artist to create new art and paying them with the promise of exposure in their generated works I'll be completely on your side. However it requires zero work from artist to have their already published work to be used as learning material. This seems like an odd way to frame this. The reality is closer to "artists were never included in the conversation to begin with". Arguing that "no one forced them to create anything new" seems irrelevant when you consider that without the content, none of this exists to begin with. The problem is the assumption that artists are or should be universally fine with this. > World without copyright and zero publishing cost is the one where authors and consumers are in control and negotiate through attention economy. World of copyright is the world where copyright hoarding dragon starve both artists and consumers. If you want to argue against copyright, that's fine, and I have plenty of issues with the current iteration of this framework of rules. But that is not the same argument as "Tools like Stable Diffusion aren't infringing because xyz technical reasons". I think it'd be helpful to be clearer about arguments for/against the spirit of the rules themselves vs. arguments about why generative AI tools do or do not create content that infringes those rules as currently designed or require an entirely new framework of thinking about the problem. They are important but distinct problems.

scotty79 4y ago
> The problem is the assumption that artists are or should be universally fine with this. I don't think anybody assumes all artists will be fine with it. But being disgruntled doesn't automatically mean you should be the one who makes the decisions. Virtually every human has a stake in this because nearly everybody consumes some art. It's time we put stronger emphasis on the rights of everybody else, instead of just mostly people who bought copyright, and artists those people think have the right to exploit. > "Tools like Stable Diffusion aren't infringing because xyz technical reasons" I don't think I'm saying there's some technical reasons those tools aren't infringing. Just overwhelming moral, practical and economical reasons that they should be allowed to operate and treated just like human artists who too can mimic and mix styles and nobody can deny them authorship unless they copy specific complex elements nearly verbatim. Btw if human artist think AI got to close to one of his works he can prove it beyond all doubt by registering their creations on some blockchain with his key and timestamp and I wouldn't be against banning this specific AI artwork that got too close. Banning use of all published art as teaching material by default is not the way to go in my opinion. Banning imitating specific style is bad too. Imagine portrait painters banned photography from using classical portrait compositions to protect their jobs. Or denied photographers even looking at portraits so they can never learn to imitate. > I think it'd be helpful to be clearer about arguments for/against the spirit of the rules themselves vs. arguments about why generative AI tools do or do not create content that infringes those rules as currently designed or require an entirely new framework of thinking about the problem. Maybe, but AI is the wonderful opportunity to discuss the spirit of horrible rules we currently have. Best opportunity we had since creation of social networking sites that chipped those rules away a bit.

scotty79 4y ago

> The problem is the assumption that artists are or should be universally fine with this. I don't think anybody assumes all artists will be fine with it. But being disgruntled doesn't automatically mean you should be the one who makes the decisions. Virtually every human has a stake in this because nearly everybody consumes some art. It's time we put stronger emphasis on the rights of everybody else, instead of just mostly people who bought copyright, and artists those people think have the right to exploit. > "Tools like Stable Diffusion aren't infringing because xyz technical reasons" I don't think I'm saying there's some technical reasons those tools aren't infringing. Just overwhelming moral, practical and economical reasons that they should be allowed to operate and treated just like human artists who too can mimic and mix styles and nobody can deny them authorship unless they copy specific complex elements nearly verbatim. Btw if human artist think AI got to close to one of his works he can prove it beyond all doubt by registering their creations on some blockchain with his key and timestamp and I wouldn't be against banning this specific AI artwork that got too close. Banning use of all published art as teaching material by default is not the way to go in my opinion. Banning imitating specific style is bad too. Imagine portrait painters banned photography from using classical portrait compositions to protect their jobs. Or denied photographers even looking at portraits so they can never learn to imitate. > I think it'd be helpful to be clearer about arguments for/against the spirit of the rules themselves vs. arguments about why generative AI tools do or do not create content that infringes those rules as currently designed or require an entirely new framework of thinking about the problem. Maybe, but AI is the wonderful opportunity to discuss the spirit of horrible rules we currently have. Best opportunity we had since creation of social networking sites that chipped those rules away a bit.