4 ms·

This is definitely the Marie Antoinette argument. It doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think art is' it matters what artists think, and what our rights are.

by jasmer 4y ago

This is definitely the Marie Antoinette argument. It doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think art is' it matters what artists think, and what our rights are. I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. AI will be fantastic for doing 'art' but it won't be good for 'artists' trying to make a living. If OpenAI wants to use some artists material they can pay for it. Otherwise, use the stuff that's not protected, make their own art, etc..

docdeek 4y ago
> I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. I'm not quite sure where I stand yet on this issue. I wonder, though, if an individual artist studies another long-dead artist's work, practices that style of painting/drawing/whatever, and then produces something in that same vein that is clearly inspired by the artist...is there a copyright issue? My instinct would be to answer 'no' as this is what art and inspiration has always been about. No one had to pay to look at Da Vinci's work or study a Renoir - the art was publicly available. Now, with OpenAI, the capacity to 'study' an artist and produce something in their style is available to all. If the work is publicly available, is a machine studying/learning from it any different to an art student in a museum? And if OpenAI generates an image in the style of Da Vinci, should it be paying someone for doing so? Again, my instinct is 'no'. I can understand why an artist working today might see things very differently but unless the source material was locked up or otherwise not available for people to see, study and learn from, I am not yet convinced there is a big difference between thousands of humans studying and imitating a master artist and a machine studying and imitating a master artist.
dreen 4y ago
The article points to two problems, one being corporations profiting from other peoples copyrighted works with just an algorithm. Thats awful for sure, but the actual utility of content generated that way is questionable at best (Also, because it's new, there is a bit of a fad for it). The other is more existential and pertains to AI replacing humans in the cultural process. I don't think it's reasonble to assume this will happen anytime soon, given the state of technology which is just nowhere near enough capable for that. By the time it would be, you'd have a fully artifical human mind.

by jasmer 4y ago

docdeek 4y ago

> I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it. I'm not quite sure where I stand yet on this issue. I wonder, though, if an individual artist studies another long-dead artist's work, practices that style of painting/drawing/whatever, and then produces something in that same vein that is clearly inspired by the artist...is there a copyright issue? My instinct would be to answer 'no' as this is what art and inspiration has always been about. No one had to pay to look at Da Vinci's work or study a Renoir - the art was publicly available. Now, with OpenAI, the capacity to 'study' an artist and produce something in their style is available to all. If the work is publicly available, is a machine studying/learning from it any different to an art student in a museum? And if OpenAI generates an image in the style of Da Vinci, should it be paying someone for doing so? Again, my instinct is 'no'. I can understand why an artist working today might see things very differently but unless the source material was locked up or otherwise not available for people to see, study and learn from, I am not yet convinced there is a big difference between thousands of humans studying and imitating a master artist and a machine studying and imitating a master artist.

dreen 4y ago

The article points to two problems, one being corporations profiting from other peoples copyrighted works with just an algorithm. Thats awful for sure, but the actual utility of content generated that way is questionable at best (Also, because it's new, there is a bit of a fad for it). The other is more existential and pertains to AI replacing humans in the cultural process. I don't think it's reasonble to assume this will happen anytime soon, given the state of technology which is just nowhere near enough capable for that. By the time it would be, you'd have a fully artifical human mind.