4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Under communism artists would be barred from making art entirely, ordered by the state to work in a place where it is deemed to be productive.
    - couchand 4y ago
      You must be joking? It's obvious if you actually care to look that leftist governments value the arts much more than liberal ones.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Is there a study on this? (Serious question.) It would seem that it opens you up to the problem of other people deciding whether you're an artist or not and if so whether you're a good artist. The same of course happens with capitalism, where it's your customers doing it. (Or in the case of books, which are almost never profitable, the VC-like publishers deciding to give you advances.) So of course the reason modern mixed economies are good is there's more than one set of people that you may be able to convince to fund you.
    - ilyt 4y ago
      > Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Sure they would, it would just be "I got paid to do this art/music piece that then someone will use in their product they sell"
  - ForestCritter 4y ago
    Actually, you are wrong. The capital of the artist is to physically create art. AI has to be fed physically created art and the told by humans what it is being fed. AI is not 'inspired', it is statistically driven by a human written progam, using mapping of human made work, labeled, tagged and defined by more humans to render a shopping list input by another human. Humans are using programming technology, written by humans to exploit other humans physical work.
    - astrange 4y ago
      > The capital of the artist is to physically create art. Surely that's their labor? Capital is the factor of production that isn't labor (or land if Georgist.)
bioemerl 4y ago
I think what we are seeing here is a proxy argument. Artists do not care about the copyright of people being able to learn from their art and reproduce it. It is not been an issue for decades, because it is a long established standard of copyright. You can't copy a work directly, you can learn from it and reproduce your own sort of stuff. What's different now is that this is a tool which artists can be replaced by. They not angry that their art has been learned from. Artists are angry that there is a tool which can replace them. And artists are looking for a way to make sure that tool is hampered as much as physically possible. If it were not learning copyright it would be something else, and whatever that's something else is it would also probably be something with proxy for that core issue. Imagine we had created an AI which was perfect, it could take your exact description of anything you asked it for and drew that thing. And then I went and asked it for a picture of Mickey mouse in the style of Disney. Because it's a perfect AI perfectly reproduces it. Who is in the wrong? I think it's absurd to think the creators of the AI would begin the wrong, because they did their job perfectly. It's a perfect app, it is a tool capable of literally anything. At the end of the day, it's the person using the tool to violate copyright who is in the wrong, assuming they distribute those images. And I don't believe the answer here is communism, I believe the answer is the same answer we've had for decades for the same situation. People need to find new jobs and learn new skills and do new things. And as programmers, it's probably going to happen to us too, about as soon as it happens to artists. Time to consider to start to learn to weld or build homes or something like that.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I don't think we can look into this from copyright standpoint. It was already not working very well in the digital age, now it's completely useless. I don't object that people should learn new skills and find new jobs, my concern is that people who actually put huge effort to produce that "training data" are now left dry. They should be compensated and move on, I'm completely against hampering the abilities of AI in order to preserve the current business structures.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero. It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples. Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful. What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actually going to make these companies that much money either. The tools are open source. Competition is going to reduce profit on these systems to a very slim margin. You have to not only compensate for the fact that they aren't involved in actually creating the AI, so they're only getting a fraction of what this thing is worth in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are five billion images in the training set. The compensation is going to be nothing.
grumbel 4y ago
The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright. And yes, that's scary, but unavoidable as tech progresses. I don't think anything good could come from trying to strickten copyright here. The AI is obviously not copying directly, at best it takes a bit of inspiration from other works, something artists themselves do plenty themselves. Something like UBI might help with the monetary needs eventually. Though the fear part might start getting really interesting in the near future. What do you do with your life when AI is better at it than you? When everything you can create, can be created by the AI faster and better?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  > This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept. People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.
  - chii 4y ago
    > People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution as has many other industries that faced automation and become obsolete. The fact that it is AI derived doesn't make it different than Luddites before.
- adriand 4y ago
  Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves. If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasonable to me. The request isn’t to eliminate the technology. It’s that artists should be able to consent to their work being used. Works derived from their work should include credit. And, they should be compensated.

by mrtksn 4y ago

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.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Under communism artists would be barred from making art entirely, ordered by the state to work in a place where it is deemed to be productive.
  - couchand 4y ago
    You must be joking? It's obvious if you actually care to look that leftist governments value the arts much more than liberal ones.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Is there a study on this? (Serious question.) It would seem that it opens you up to the problem of other people deciding whether you're an artist or not and if so whether you're a good artist. The same of course happens with capitalism, where it's your customers doing it. (Or in the case of books, which are almost never profitable, the VC-like publishers deciding to give you advances.) So of course the reason modern mixed economies are good is there's more than one set of people that you may be able to convince to fund you.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    > Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Sure they would, it would just be "I got paid to do this art/music piece that then someone will use in their product they sell"
- ForestCritter 4y ago
  Actually, you are wrong. The capital of the artist is to physically create art. AI has to be fed physically created art and the told by humans what it is being fed. AI is not 'inspired', it is statistically driven by a human written progam, using mapping of human made work, labeled, tagged and defined by more humans to render a shopping list input by another human. Humans are using programming technology, written by humans to exploit other humans physical work.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > The capital of the artist is to physically create art. Surely that's their labor? Capital is the factor of production that isn't labor (or land if Georgist.)

bioemerl 4y ago

I think what we are seeing here is a proxy argument. Artists do not care about the copyright of people being able to learn from their art and reproduce it. It is not been an issue for decades, because it is a long established standard of copyright. You can't copy a work directly, you can learn from it and reproduce your own sort of stuff. What's different now is that this is a tool which artists can be replaced by. They not angry that their art has been learned from. Artists are angry that there is a tool which can replace them. And artists are looking for a way to make sure that tool is hampered as much as physically possible. If it were not learning copyright it would be something else, and whatever that's something else is it would also probably be something with proxy for that core issue. Imagine we had created an AI which was perfect, it could take your exact description of anything you asked it for and drew that thing. And then I went and asked it for a picture of Mickey mouse in the style of Disney. Because it's a perfect AI perfectly reproduces it. Who is in the wrong? I think it's absurd to think the creators of the AI would begin the wrong, because they did their job perfectly. It's a perfect app, it is a tool capable of literally anything. At the end of the day, it's the person using the tool to violate copyright who is in the wrong, assuming they distribute those images. And I don't believe the answer here is communism, I believe the answer is the same answer we've had for decades for the same situation. People need to find new jobs and learn new skills and do new things. And as programmers, it's probably going to happen to us too, about as soon as it happens to artists. Time to consider to start to learn to weld or build homes or something like that.

mrtksn 4y ago
I don't think we can look into this from copyright standpoint. It was already not working very well in the digital age, now it's completely useless. I don't object that people should learn new skills and find new jobs, my concern is that people who actually put huge effort to produce that "training data" are now left dry. They should be compensated and move on, I'm completely against hampering the abilities of AI in order to preserve the current business structures.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero. It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples. Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful. What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actually going to make these companies that much money either. The tools are open source. Competition is going to reduce profit on these systems to a very slim margin. You have to not only compensate for the fact that they aren't involved in actually creating the AI, so they're only getting a fraction of what this thing is worth in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are five billion images in the training set. The compensation is going to be nothing.

grumbel 4y ago

The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright. And yes, that's scary, but unavoidable as tech progresses. I don't think anything good could come from trying to strickten copyright here. The AI is obviously not copying directly, at best it takes a bit of inspiration from other works, something artists themselves do plenty themselves. Something like UBI might help with the monetary needs eventually. Though the fear part might start getting really interesting in the near future. What do you do with your life when AI is better at it than you? When everything you can create, can be created by the AI faster and better?

mrtksn 4y ago
> This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept. People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.
- chii 4y ago
  > People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution as has many other industries that faced automation and become obsolete. The fact that it is AI derived doesn't make it different than Luddites before.
adriand 4y ago
Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves. If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasonable to me. The request isn’t to eliminate the technology. It’s that artists should be able to consent to their work being used. Works derived from their work should include credit. And, they should be compensated.