3 ms·

>Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1]

>Personally, I can't help but thing this is at least partially the result of the "$187,500 for one year of full-time lobbyist in D.C" against AI art GoFundMe[1] and I can't help but find it particular that people can so easily and transparently put money together to push a certain agenda. So it's fine when $BIG_CORPS run by largely unaccountable CEOs/management teams/Boards do it, but not when the little guy grassroots? Is that what I'm reading? For that matter, it's fine when the above use things like dark money pools and PACs to influence government while obscuring where the funds came from, but you're complaining that the little guy, transparently donating to a cause, is something that shouldn't be kosher? Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person, but if it's the way things work, then it's the way things work, and I won't begrudge the people for making their voice heard, even if some nuance ends up getting lost in the shuffle. I'm just to make sure I understand here.

freejazz 4y ago
> Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person People here jump backwards over the EFF, which is otherwise a big tech industry lobbying group that does whatever it can to dissolve copyright and patent law that protects small time artists and inventors.
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
My concern is not lobbying but the specific agenda of this group that uses crowdfunding to push for a blanket ban on all AI-related art. This approach pretty much bypasses the traditional process of open debates and public discourse around new technologies and their potential impact on society preventively out of fear. By using financial resources to hire a lobbyist and push for a ban, they effectively shuts down any meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of AI-generated art, as well as the potential impact of a ban on artists and businesses that depend on this technology. This approach is not only potentially detrimental to the development of the technology itself but it also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability in the political process. A lot of the content being published by such groups do not present the situation accurately but present AI-generated art as "collages" or tools that directly plagiarize or replicate the work of other artists. For example, Karla Ortiz (board member of the CAA, the group who is behind this GoFundMe) describes it as "it’s like someone who already robbed you [...]". More examples can be found on this website that adds commentary to the original lawsuit against "a 21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists": http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ Lobbying in itself can be a legitimate form of political advocacy. The specific use of crowdfunding to push for a broad ban on any AI-related artistic generation is where I raise concerns.
- Riverheart 4y ago
  Do you really believe that the people pushing for AI art would slowdown or even stop their work if artists did have legitimate concerns about proliferation of this tech? There is money to be made by developers, money to save by bypassing artists, and those artists using AI art may compete more effectively against peers that don't. Why would they stop?

freejazz 4y ago

> Look, I hate lobbyists as much as the next person People here jump backwards over the EFF, which is otherwise a big tech industry lobbying group that does whatever it can to dissolve copyright and patent law that protects small time artists and inventors.

Karawebnetwork 4y ago

My concern is not lobbying but the specific agenda of this group that uses crowdfunding to push for a blanket ban on all AI-related art. This approach pretty much bypasses the traditional process of open debates and public discourse around new technologies and their potential impact on society preventively out of fear. By using financial resources to hire a lobbyist and push for a ban, they effectively shuts down any meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of AI-generated art, as well as the potential impact of a ban on artists and businesses that depend on this technology. This approach is not only potentially detrimental to the development of the technology itself but it also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability in the political process. A lot of the content being published by such groups do not present the situation accurately but present AI-generated art as "collages" or tools that directly plagiarize or replicate the work of other artists. For example, Karla Ortiz (board member of the CAA, the group who is behind this GoFundMe) describes it as "it’s like someone who already robbed you [...]". More examples can be found on this website that adds commentary to the original lawsuit against "a 21st-century collage tool that violates the rights of artists": http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ http://www.stablediffusionfrivolous.com/ Lobbying in itself can be a legitimate form of political advocacy. The specific use of crowdfunding to push for a broad ban on any AI-related artistic generation is where I raise concerns.

Riverheart 4y ago
Do you really believe that the people pushing for AI art would slowdown or even stop their work if artists did have legitimate concerns about proliferation of this tech? There is money to be made by developers, money to save by bypassing artists, and those artists using AI art may compete more effectively against peers that don't. Why would they stop?