8 ms·

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, hum

by mrtksn 4y ago

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.

social_quotient 4y ago
So the parent post to yours said he’s taking piano lessons. Let’s suppose he becomes great. And let’s suppose he writes his own music. How is Taylor Swift supposed to get paid by him from his early lessons which have undoubtedly played a key role in not only his love for music but the song he writes today?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  She doesn't because it's not a business issue for her. She is not getting paid when you sing her songs with your friends too and this is also not a problem. I'm not thinking from the current definitions of right and compensation structures and I'm not calculating fees here. What I say is that if you build your thing on top of other people's work and put them out of business this needs to be addressed because you will cause huge problems to the people who made your machine possible in first place and you will dry up your source of "inspiration" because you will no longer have people making living of it.
- wokwokwok 4y ago
  You are fundamentally not addressing the issue. Previously, someone was being paid to produce something. Now, they are no longer being paid and the business can get the same thing “for free”. You can argue the same issue about out sourcing programmers to south east Asia. Is it good or bad? “…but how do we compensate the programmers who lost their jobs?” It’s just economics right? …but saying that doesn’t address the social issues that this technology is creating. People. Out of jobs. Bluntly, that’s what it boils down to. Are you ok being replaced by a $0.02 / hour dude from Thailand? By a $0.001 / hour AI? You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it? I do.
  - josephg 4y ago
    > People. Out of jobs. > You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it? I think it makes all sorts of sense that people are upset about stable diffusion. And, people being upset isn't a good reason to change the law or outlaw the new technology. Today the word "luddite" is a slur. But luddites were real people who made the same argument you're making. In their case, they were a secret group of textile workers so upset by the introduction of the mechanical loom that they went around sabotaging equipment. Suppose we wound the clock back and the luddites won a legal battle and successfully outlawed the mechanical loom in the UK. Knowing what we know now, would you support a law like that to protect the jobs of textile workers in the 19th century? I sure wouldn't - it would have decimated the economy of the UK and stunted innovation. Thats the danger of using the law to protect the status quo. Sometimes the status quo needs to change to make room for what comes next, regardless of how painful that change is. The law doesn't exist to protect your business model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite We're at the verge of the second industrial revolution. I have no idea how it shakes out, but I don't think clinging desperately to the old ways of doing things will be a winning strategy in the long run.
    - couchand 4y ago
      The true story of the Luddites is just one more chapter in the long history of state repression of the working people any time they organize together to improve their lot. The law shouldn't protect the status quo, it should protect human beings. Unfortunately, the law usually protects the wealthy first and only.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Neoluddism isn't solved by smashing the machines...
  - waffletower 4y ago
    Use of AI models is far from "free". Even given their prior existence, ignoring their research and training cost, AI models like Stable Diffusion require energy and computing resources to execute, and require iteration and selection labor for raw image content to be created. Once raw content has been created, the content still requires processing (i.e. color correction) and integration (i.e. editing, scaling etc.) labor. If analog reproductions are desired, they also require capital to produce.
bioemerl 4y ago
I don't get the assumption that there should be. The machine was trained on publicly available hard that was already free. Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free? They don't have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that's just never been a part of copyright.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Capitalism isn't when you pay for things, it's when there's capital you can sell.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      The capital of the artists is their intellectual property, that's the point.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        So if I look at everything you created with an omniscient view how many violations will I find in your artwork? These days it's both publishers and artists attempting to create RMS's world of a right to read.
      - astrange 4y ago
        "Capitalism" is selling the right itself to someone else, not earning royalties from it. IP rights are government creations; it's not like you signed a contract with each royalty payer.
      - 4y ago
waffletower 4y ago
There is no compensation for any usage save for duplication. No works are being taken away. Style is not and has not been copyrightable. If the disrupted lobbies are powerful enough, the law may change in this regard. To do so, would be a tragic corruption of fair use.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
The "problem" is only a problem if you assume that everything creates a right to be compensated. The busker doesn't get compensated if I listen to him as I walk by (unless I choose to). He doesn't get compensated even if he has a really cool, kinda-unique idea, I get inspired by it, and start doing something very similar (without outright copying him in the sense of copyright). He doesn't get compensated even if I get my friends to join me and put him out of business. Copyright is already an artificial piece of compensation that was added, and that is debatable (copyright can be seen as "theft from the commons"). It intentionally covers certain things and doesn't cover others, and this seems to fall under "others", as long as the training data was obtained legally. I expect that to be the real problem, especially where content was reposted without permission.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by mrtksn 4y ago

social_quotient 4y ago

So the parent post to yours said he’s taking piano lessons. Let’s suppose he becomes great. And let’s suppose he writes his own music. How is Taylor Swift supposed to get paid by him from his early lessons which have undoubtedly played a key role in not only his love for music but the song he writes today?

mrtksn 4y ago
She doesn't because it's not a business issue for her. She is not getting paid when you sing her songs with your friends too and this is also not a problem. I'm not thinking from the current definitions of right and compensation structures and I'm not calculating fees here. What I say is that if you build your thing on top of other people's work and put them out of business this needs to be addressed because you will cause huge problems to the people who made your machine possible in first place and you will dry up your source of "inspiration" because you will no longer have people making living of it.
wokwokwok 4y ago
You are fundamentally not addressing the issue. Previously, someone was being paid to produce something. Now, they are no longer being paid and the business can get the same thing “for free”. You can argue the same issue about out sourcing programmers to south east Asia. Is it good or bad? “…but how do we compensate the programmers who lost their jobs?” It’s just economics right? …but saying that doesn’t address the social issues that this technology is creating. People. Out of jobs. Bluntly, that’s what it boils down to. Are you ok being replaced by a $0.02 / hour dude from Thailand? By a $0.001 / hour AI? You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it? I do.
- josephg 4y ago
  > People. Out of jobs. > You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it? I think it makes all sorts of sense that people are upset about stable diffusion. And, people being upset isn't a good reason to change the law or outlaw the new technology. Today the word "luddite" is a slur. But luddites were real people who made the same argument you're making. In their case, they were a secret group of textile workers so upset by the introduction of the mechanical loom that they went around sabotaging equipment. Suppose we wound the clock back and the luddites won a legal battle and successfully outlawed the mechanical loom in the UK. Knowing what we know now, would you support a law like that to protect the jobs of textile workers in the 19th century? I sure wouldn't - it would have decimated the economy of the UK and stunted innovation. Thats the danger of using the law to protect the status quo. Sometimes the status quo needs to change to make room for what comes next, regardless of how painful that change is. The law doesn't exist to protect your business model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite We're at the verge of the second industrial revolution. I have no idea how it shakes out, but I don't think clinging desperately to the old ways of doing things will be a winning strategy in the long run.
  - couchand 4y ago
    The true story of the Luddites is just one more chapter in the long history of state repression of the working people any time they organize together to improve their lot. The law shouldn't protect the status quo, it should protect human beings. Unfortunately, the law usually protects the wealthy first and only.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Neoluddism isn't solved by smashing the machines...
- waffletower 4y ago
  Use of AI models is far from "free". Even given their prior existence, ignoring their research and training cost, AI models like Stable Diffusion require energy and computing resources to execute, and require iteration and selection labor for raw image content to be created. Once raw content has been created, the content still requires processing (i.e. color correction) and integration (i.e. editing, scaling etc.) labor. If analog reproductions are desired, they also require capital to produce.

bioemerl 4y ago

I don't get the assumption that there should be. The machine was trained on publicly available hard that was already free. Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free? They don't have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that's just never been a part of copyright.

mrtksn 4y ago
They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.
- astrange 4y ago
  Capitalism isn't when you pay for things, it's when there's capital you can sell.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    The capital of the artists is their intellectual property, that's the point.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      So if I look at everything you created with an omniscient view how many violations will I find in your artwork? These days it's both publishers and artists attempting to create RMS's world of a right to read.
    - astrange 4y ago
      "Capitalism" is selling the right itself to someone else, not earning royalties from it. IP rights are government creations; it's not like you signed a contract with each royalty payer.
    - 4y ago

waffletower 4y ago

There is no compensation for any usage save for duplication. No works are being taken away. Style is not and has not been copyrightable. If the disrupted lobbies are powerful enough, the law may change in this regard. To do so, would be a tragic corruption of fair use.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago

The "problem" is only a problem if you assume that everything creates a right to be compensated. The busker doesn't get compensated if I listen to him as I walk by (unless I choose to). He doesn't get compensated even if he has a really cool, kinda-unique idea, I get inspired by it, and start doing something very similar (without outright copying him in the sense of copyright). He doesn't get compensated even if I get my friends to join me and put him out of business. Copyright is already an artificial piece of compensation that was added, and that is debatable (copyright can be seen as "theft from the commons"). It intentionally covers certain things and doesn't cover others, and this seems to fall under "others", as long as the training data was obtained legally. I expect that to be the real problem, especially where content was reposted without permission.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]