6 ms·

I find it interesting that many artists seem to think their creativity was formed in a vacuum, as if the overwhelming mass of any human's output isn't based off

by Udo 4y ago

I find it interesting that many artists seem to think their creativity was formed in a vacuum, as if the overwhelming mass of any human's output isn't based off of earlier input. The thing we're actually rebelling against here is a perception of outperformance, and maybe to some degree obsolescence, of certain skills. This always happens when there is a quantum leap in the development of tools. Somehow we have this notion that we can put an idea (a song, a painting, a text, a meme, you name it) out there and by virtue of copyright people will be obliged to pay for it but will not be able to use it in any way. This is not possible, and advancements in tools such as computers and AI generators make this very obvious. You will NEVER be able to prevent people from mimicking your style, your choices, even your content - you can only prevent them from publishing identical copies and claiming them as their own for a while. I think that's all perfectly fine. If you don't want your idea to become part of the mountain of content that our civilization is built on: don't publish it. Write it down, store it in your cellar, and have your heirs burn it after you die.

CardenB 4y ago
Many artists pay for various educational services. The most valuable IP is not always free, and it's reasonable to revisit the pricing model for IP if there are new ways of consuming it (training models).
- nine_k 4y ago
  Enforcing said IP becomes increasingly difficult.
greysphere 4y ago
So long as you're consistent with that view for all forms of intellectual property that seems a reasonable position. However, most of the world had chosen to enact barriers giving rights to the creators of IP, on the theory that that incentive encourages the development of creative works and enriches society more than it would have without those barriers. I look forward to the work you are going to be doing the upcoming years to promote your position, build coalitions and enact laws that will change society to reflect your viewpoint. That is unless that isn't your plan and instead your spouting talking points just to serve your self interest. Hopefully not though!
- Udo 4y ago
  > enact laws that will change society to reflect your viewpoint Society already reflects my viewpoint. Culture is based on remixing ideas. Most commonly copyright applies to direct reproduction, although there are obviously degrees. Whether copyright deserves to exist as it currently does is another discussion. > instead your spouting nonsense just to serve your self interest. Hopefully not though! What about my position is nonsense, and what do you think my self interest is? Edit: Look, I'm sorry for rubbing you the wrong way, obviously we both have some strong opinions about AI generators, and maybe tool usage in general. I would like to know more about where you're coming from to have a reaction this visceral. The most glaring point of critique against current AI generators I would understand is the fact that multi-billion dollar startups are printing money using the work of other people for free. Is that it maybe? Would you have a reaction that strong if the models were open source?
  - greysphere 4y ago
    My interpretation of the general society's viewpoint on this is for the most part people are ok with the restrictions we place on intellectual property. Most people don't record movies on their phones in theaters, most people don't photocopy books, most people don't trace over artwork and then pass it off as it own. There are people that do all of those things and they are generally shunned by the communities of people involved in creating those works, and the rest of society for the most part goes along with that position, either by not caring, or supporting the laws. There are points of strife of course, the very extended copyright windows we're seeing, the concerns over sampling in music, (particularly a few decades ago when the technology to sample became widely available, though mostly resolved at this point). I'm not super familiar with all disciplines, but I know within art/drawing, there is a ton of discourse and training to communicate to new artists what appropriate study/remix/use of reference is, and what crosses the line. While there are different viewpoints, I have confidence that for the most part these discussion are based on good faith arguments in ways that serve the artists and those that consume art. Not saying any of this is perfect or couldn't be improved, but the institutional knowledge is significant and dismissing and overriding is probably going to be a lot of work. On the flip side, there are those that 'justify' whatever they are doing as... well, as whatever argument suits whatever they are doing. This commonly happens with piracy ("I don't want to support big-co XX", or "DRM is evil" or "This is just for personal use"). Any of these would hold a lot more water if anyone who had this opinion actually did any work to to solve whatever problem they were having, while respecting the creators interest (maybe by say, strengthening IP laws so DRM was unnecessary), but that almost never seems to be the case, because turns out the argument isn't actually an argument to modify the concepts of intellectual property to enhance society, it's just an excuse to justify stealing. This is what I'm seeing constantly with regard to the current round of AI data scraping, people spouting "it's ok because of XX" but then not really having any interest in propagating XX, instead just having an interest in using other people work without paying them to advance their AI product. Your original post didn't seem to express which camp your interests lie, so I responded as if it could be in either camp.
raincole 4y ago
Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should and will treat AI and human artists in the same say. Car is just a faster way to let you move from A to B. But laws treat cars and pedestrians vastly different. A more extreme(but less related) example: a dog is just a mammal like a pig. But in a lot of countries, dog and cat are "special cases" and trading their meat is illegel. Laws are extremely inconsistant.
- Udo 4y ago
  > Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should treat AI and human artists in the same say. I think that's an entirely different discussion to have. I think AI generators are not faster artists, they're generative tools. Given the amount of prompt engineering and output editing, I'd say significant human input and creativity is still involved. Even in cases where no such work is being done by a human, it's just a generator, not a person. We have been making generated artwork for as long as computers exist, it's just that the quality, artistic range, and accessibility have made a jump now. > Car is just a faster way to let you move from A to B. But laws treat cars and pedestrians vastly different. I would say the laws treat printing presses differently from computers, but so far we haven't had any laws (that I know of) trying to protect human typesetters from modern DTP software. > Laws are extremely inconsistant. True.
unxdfa 4y ago
It's a little more complicated than that. These models, by nature, can only produce derivative mimicry. Humans are capable of generating spontaneous concepts and employing meta-qualities like craftmanship and labour in the output. From this we derive value and personal worth as artists, writers, scientists and engineers etc. To replace this process with an ML implementation devalues humanity and that is what most people are objecting to, if they realise it or not.
- Udo 4y ago
  > These models, by nature, can only produce derivative mimicry. Humans are capable of generating spontaneous concepts and employing meta-qualities [...] It's even more complicated than that. "derivative mimicry" and "meta-qualities" are both subjective value judgements you are making, and you're implicitly asking us to go along with them as given. Human output is also derivative. AI output also has meta-qualities. The real difference is that one is made by a person, the other is made by a person using a tool. > To replace this process with an ML implementation devalues humanity Maybe there will be a time where machines will - without any human action involved at all - generate content, put it online, autonomously interact with other machine-generated content, and there will be a closed system where humans are either not involved or are just passive consumers. In that case, yes, humans have clearly fallen completely by the wayside. Which, depending on the nature of those interacting autonomous systems, may be the start of a whole new civilization. Or just electrons chasing each other in circuits that are endlessly recombining the ghostly echoes of their long forgotten makers. However, that day is not today. We have made more capable content generators and generative tools, and amazingly, have democratized them to a degree.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    You couldn't be more right. They're content generators. If you can't stand "consuming content" they're useless. So is 95% of modern TV, even if human made, because they're also applying patterns they've been taught. Once in a while something interesting is made by the content mills - possibly by mistake - and pattern appliers, be they human or automation, have nothing to do with it. A few humans are capable of going beyond applying patterns, current "AI" isn't at all.
quadcore 4y ago
Say you generate a picture with an AI like midjourney, who's the artist? It's fair to say it's midjourney right? Except midjourney isnt an artist, it's a machine. But a machine can only copy. Or you're saying a machine can be an artist.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  It’s also not Photoshop. It’s the person making the non-trivial decisions about what to get the machine to do.
  - quadcore 4y ago
    Say you use photoshop to make a picture, who's the artist? It's fair to say you're the artist. Or you are saying photoshop is the artist.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      The person using the paintbrush, or the instrument, or photoshop, or AI, is the artist.
      - quadcore 4y ago
        You're saying the AI has the copyright. So how did you get the permission from the AI to copy that picture? You asked - nicely? Something in the order of "hey AI, can I copy the picture you have the copyright of?"
        Waterluvian 4y ago
        I’m not sure how else I can write this. Maybe I’m mis-using commas? The AI does NOT hold a copyright. That’s ridiculous. The person using the AI does. It’s just a tool like a piano or a paintbrush. A piano doesn’t own the copyright to any music. It can’t. It has no rights. It’s a piano.
- Udo 4y ago
greysphere 4y ago
I'd also like to disagree with the claim "many artists seem to think their creativity was formed in a vacuum". In my experience, most artists will gladly list out the artists that they've admired and studied from int their training, and specifically say what pieces or styles influenced any particular work. And then most of the time if you were to communicate that influence to the source artist(s) they would be overjoyed that someone appreciated their work so much that they contributed to the success of the new work. This is all part of training for and being an artist. These boundaries are set more in (artist) culture than in law, and of course there are those that violate those boundaries, but I think for the most part artists buy in to this shared creative experience, particularly the more invested and successful you get within the field.
lizard 4y ago
I think there's room for some middle ground here. It does not seem unreasonable to put some constraints on the AI such that if prompted > produce a work in the style of $living_artist it could respond > With respect to $living_artist, I can't generate work in their style, but if you enjoy their work you can support them at $studio. The whole "living" thing meaning that at some point this protection expires so you can ask for things in the style of DaVinci, Van Gogh, etc.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
Check out Steven Zapata's "The End of Art" video on youtube. (It's about 40min long and the recommendations on the side have lots of rebuttals.) You might hear an argument or concern you haven't heard yet.

by Udo 4y ago

CardenB 4y ago

Many artists pay for various educational services. The most valuable IP is not always free, and it's reasonable to revisit the pricing model for IP if there are new ways of consuming it (training models).

nine_k 4y ago
Enforcing said IP becomes increasingly difficult.

greysphere 4y ago

So long as you're consistent with that view for all forms of intellectual property that seems a reasonable position. However, most of the world had chosen to enact barriers giving rights to the creators of IP, on the theory that that incentive encourages the development of creative works and enriches society more than it would have without those barriers. I look forward to the work you are going to be doing the upcoming years to promote your position, build coalitions and enact laws that will change society to reflect your viewpoint. That is unless that isn't your plan and instead your spouting talking points just to serve your self interest. Hopefully not though!

Udo 4y ago
> enact laws that will change society to reflect your viewpoint Society already reflects my viewpoint. Culture is based on remixing ideas. Most commonly copyright applies to direct reproduction, although there are obviously degrees. Whether copyright deserves to exist as it currently does is another discussion. > instead your spouting nonsense just to serve your self interest. Hopefully not though! What about my position is nonsense, and what do you think my self interest is? Edit: Look, I'm sorry for rubbing you the wrong way, obviously we both have some strong opinions about AI generators, and maybe tool usage in general. I would like to know more about where you're coming from to have a reaction this visceral. The most glaring point of critique against current AI generators I would understand is the fact that multi-billion dollar startups are printing money using the work of other people for free. Is that it maybe? Would you have a reaction that strong if the models were open source?
- greysphere 4y ago
  My interpretation of the general society's viewpoint on this is for the most part people are ok with the restrictions we place on intellectual property. Most people don't record movies on their phones in theaters, most people don't photocopy books, most people don't trace over artwork and then pass it off as it own. There are people that do all of those things and they are generally shunned by the communities of people involved in creating those works, and the rest of society for the most part goes along with that position, either by not caring, or supporting the laws. There are points of strife of course, the very extended copyright windows we're seeing, the concerns over sampling in music, (particularly a few decades ago when the technology to sample became widely available, though mostly resolved at this point). I'm not super familiar with all disciplines, but I know within art/drawing, there is a ton of discourse and training to communicate to new artists what appropriate study/remix/use of reference is, and what crosses the line. While there are different viewpoints, I have confidence that for the most part these discussion are based on good faith arguments in ways that serve the artists and those that consume art. Not saying any of this is perfect or couldn't be improved, but the institutional knowledge is significant and dismissing and overriding is probably going to be a lot of work. On the flip side, there are those that 'justify' whatever they are doing as... well, as whatever argument suits whatever they are doing. This commonly happens with piracy ("I don't want to support big-co XX", or "DRM is evil" or "This is just for personal use"). Any of these would hold a lot more water if anyone who had this opinion actually did any work to to solve whatever problem they were having, while respecting the creators interest (maybe by say, strengthening IP laws so DRM was unnecessary), but that almost never seems to be the case, because turns out the argument isn't actually an argument to modify the concepts of intellectual property to enhance society, it's just an excuse to justify stealing. This is what I'm seeing constantly with regard to the current round of AI data scraping, people spouting "it's ok because of XX" but then not really having any interest in propagating XX, instead just having an interest in using other people work without paying them to advance their AI product. Your original post didn't seem to express which camp your interests lie, so I responded as if it could be in either camp.

raincole 4y ago

Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should and will treat AI and human artists in the same say. Car is just a faster way to let you move from A to B. But laws treat cars and pedestrians vastly different. A more extreme(but less related) example: a dog is just a mammal like a pig. But in a lot of countries, dog and cat are "special cases" and trading their meat is illegel. Laws are extremely inconsistant.

Udo 4y ago
> Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should treat AI and human artists in the same say. I think that's an entirely different discussion to have. I think AI generators are not faster artists, they're generative tools. Given the amount of prompt engineering and output editing, I'd say significant human input and creativity is still involved. Even in cases where no such work is being done by a human, it's just a generator, not a person. We have been making generated artwork for as long as computers exist, it's just that the quality, artistic range, and accessibility have made a jump now. > Car is just a faster way to let you move from A to B. But laws treat cars and pedestrians vastly different. I would say the laws treat printing presses differently from computers, but so far we haven't had any laws (that I know of) trying to protect human typesetters from modern DTP software. > Laws are extremely inconsistant. True.

unxdfa 4y ago

It's a little more complicated than that. These models, by nature, can only produce derivative mimicry. Humans are capable of generating spontaneous concepts and employing meta-qualities like craftmanship and labour in the output. From this we derive value and personal worth as artists, writers, scientists and engineers etc. To replace this process with an ML implementation devalues humanity and that is what most people are objecting to, if they realise it or not.

Udo 4y ago
> These models, by nature, can only produce derivative mimicry. Humans are capable of generating spontaneous concepts and employing meta-qualities [...] It's even more complicated than that. "derivative mimicry" and "meta-qualities" are both subjective value judgements you are making, and you're implicitly asking us to go along with them as given. Human output is also derivative. AI output also has meta-qualities. The real difference is that one is made by a person, the other is made by a person using a tool. > To replace this process with an ML implementation devalues humanity Maybe there will be a time where machines will - without any human action involved at all - generate content, put it online, autonomously interact with other machine-generated content, and there will be a closed system where humans are either not involved or are just passive consumers. In that case, yes, humans have clearly fallen completely by the wayside. Which, depending on the nature of those interacting autonomous systems, may be the start of a whole new civilization. Or just electrons chasing each other in circuits that are endlessly recombining the ghostly echoes of their long forgotten makers. However, that day is not today. We have made more capable content generators and generative tools, and amazingly, have democratized them to a degree.
- nottorp 4y ago
  You couldn't be more right. They're content generators. If you can't stand "consuming content" they're useless. So is 95% of modern TV, even if human made, because they're also applying patterns they've been taught. Once in a while something interesting is made by the content mills - possibly by mistake - and pattern appliers, be they human or automation, have nothing to do with it. A few humans are capable of going beyond applying patterns, current "AI" isn't at all.

quadcore 4y ago

Say you generate a picture with an AI like midjourney, who's the artist? It's fair to say it's midjourney right? Except midjourney isnt an artist, it's a machine. But a machine can only copy. Or you're saying a machine can be an artist.

Waterluvian 4y ago
It’s also not Photoshop. It’s the person making the non-trivial decisions about what to get the machine to do.
- quadcore 4y ago
  Say you use photoshop to make a picture, who's the artist? It's fair to say you're the artist. Or you are saying photoshop is the artist.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    The person using the paintbrush, or the instrument, or photoshop, or AI, is the artist.
    - quadcore 4y ago
      You're saying the AI has the copyright. So how did you get the permission from the AI to copy that picture? You asked - nicely? Something in the order of "hey AI, can I copy the picture you have the copyright of?"
      - Waterluvian 4y ago
        I’m not sure how else I can write this. Maybe I’m mis-using commas? The AI does NOT hold a copyright. That’s ridiculous. The person using the AI does. It’s just a tool like a piano or a paintbrush. A piano doesn’t own the copyright to any music. It can’t. It has no rights. It’s a piano.
Udo 4y ago

greysphere 4y ago

I'd also like to disagree with the claim "many artists seem to think their creativity was formed in a vacuum". In my experience, most artists will gladly list out the artists that they've admired and studied from int their training, and specifically say what pieces or styles influenced any particular work. And then most of the time if you were to communicate that influence to the source artist(s) they would be overjoyed that someone appreciated their work so much that they contributed to the success of the new work. This is all part of training for and being an artist. These boundaries are set more in (artist) culture than in law, and of course there are those that violate those boundaries, but I think for the most part artists buy in to this shared creative experience, particularly the more invested and successful you get within the field.

lizard 4y ago

I think there's room for some middle ground here. It does not seem unreasonable to put some constraints on the AI such that if prompted > produce a work in the style of $living_artist it could respond > With respect to $living_artist, I can't generate work in their style, but if you enjoy their work you can support them at $studio. The whole "living" thing meaning that at some point this protection expires so you can ask for things in the style of DaVinci, Van Gogh, etc.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

Check out Steven Zapata's "The End of Art" video on youtube. (It's about 40min long and the recommendations on the side have lots of rebuttals.) You might hear an argument or concern you haven't heard yet.