4 ms·

This, trying to use this to stop AI art, is like trying to stop climate change, except 10000 times harder. 1.Like climate change, its a commons issue. AI learn

This, trying to use this to stop AI art, is like trying to stop climate change, except 10000 times harder. 1.Like climate change, its a commons issue. AI learns from the artists at large, so a single artist protecting themselves does nothing. Nobody copies specific artists except the very top tier who have distinct and beautiful styles. 2.AIs will still have all the art produced before 2023 to train on. Which is a gigantic amount with huge room for optimization in training. 3.This can be trivially circumvented. Given the requirement of the glazed image to look identical to the human eye, it must be possible informationally to reproduce the image without the glaze. 4. It should be trivial to train a quick GAN to revert this glaze, given you can trivially artificially create before-after datasets using this very tool.

gwoolhurme 4y ago
I don't really like this view point, respectfully. It reads like "learn to code" except now that it is coming for programming as well. Perhaps the new slogan should be learn to plumb. Your point about climate change is apt, just because it is hard doesn't mean there should not be some sort of protections put in place to protect intellectual property of the artists. Overtrained AI produce something similar to plagiarism. There should be legal protections against that.
- Kalium 4y ago
  OK. Let's assume legal protections are put in place tomorrow and today's living artists magically (because it skips all the details of "How do you make that work?") acquire all the rights and enforcement abilities they could wish for. What do we expect changes? I think the uncomfortable answer is that for a lot of commercial art uses, nothing changes. In many cases people just want something to fulfill a need and aren't really all that picky about it. Maybe the style changes to be one of the Old Masters instead of something current. Getting it fast and cheap means they don't have to think about it much. A great many commercial art jobs will vanish just as they will outside this hypothetical. Perhaps we should pause and identify what outcome we want before prescribing policy. Are rights our priority, or are we trying to secure the incomes of artists?
  - gwoolhurme 4y ago
    I don’t know I truly don’t. I don’t have any answers. Because you might be right. Especially for commercial art. Just the same as climate change, I don’t see any solution. It all gets worse and worse for everyone involved, except a select few. The outcome I would assume, would be that the livelihoods of artists are protected, or at the minimum that if they do not want a program to mimic a clearly unique style, that it doesn’t. That might just be pie in the sky dreaming at this point though. All desk work is going to disappear, everyone will be displaced.
    - Kalium 4y ago
      What is your goal here? What outcome do you want to achieve? It sounds like your primary goal is financial, with rights being a means to an end. Is that accurate?
      - gwoolhurme 4y ago
        That might be accurate, however it is not just financial right? I would say that is the bulk of it though. To the self-worth side of it, someone posted below, but humans tie self worth to their profession as well right? That is probably something wrong with society as a whole but that is how people work as of this day. In the case of an artist (I am not an artist just to be clear), they've worked decades to hone this craft correct? To have it scraped and used to a level that only a machine can do. Something about that feels wrong? I get that is an emotional appeal. Which is probably why I will never write policy.
        Kalium 4y ago
        Once upon a time, when thread and cloth was all made by hand, the equivalent of a t-shirt cost the equivalent of $5000 in labor alone. Today we consider that absurd. The spinners, fullers, and weavers of the time considered it their livelihoods, the way they fed their children, the way they achieved economic and social status, and thus just and right. Today we're far enough removed from those days to consider their perspective transparently self-serving for all that their distress must have been immensely real and sincere. We use mechanical looms now. We broadly agree that people have better things to do with their lives than spin rough thread, better ways to contribute to society. So I get why it feels wrong to many, but I also have no trouble placing it and those objections in a context of a recurring historical pattern.

gwoolhurme 4y ago

I don't really like this view point, respectfully. It reads like "learn to code" except now that it is coming for programming as well. Perhaps the new slogan should be learn to plumb. Your point about climate change is apt, just because it is hard doesn't mean there should not be some sort of protections put in place to protect intellectual property of the artists. Overtrained AI produce something similar to plagiarism. There should be legal protections against that.

Kalium 4y ago
OK. Let's assume legal protections are put in place tomorrow and today's living artists magically (because it skips all the details of "How do you make that work?") acquire all the rights and enforcement abilities they could wish for. What do we expect changes? I think the uncomfortable answer is that for a lot of commercial art uses, nothing changes. In many cases people just want something to fulfill a need and aren't really all that picky about it. Maybe the style changes to be one of the Old Masters instead of something current. Getting it fast and cheap means they don't have to think about it much. A great many commercial art jobs will vanish just as they will outside this hypothetical. Perhaps we should pause and identify what outcome we want before prescribing policy. Are rights our priority, or are we trying to secure the incomes of artists?
- gwoolhurme 4y ago
  I don’t know I truly don’t. I don’t have any answers. Because you might be right. Especially for commercial art. Just the same as climate change, I don’t see any solution. It all gets worse and worse for everyone involved, except a select few. The outcome I would assume, would be that the livelihoods of artists are protected, or at the minimum that if they do not want a program to mimic a clearly unique style, that it doesn’t. That might just be pie in the sky dreaming at this point though. All desk work is going to disappear, everyone will be displaced.
  - Kalium 4y ago
    What is your goal here? What outcome do you want to achieve? It sounds like your primary goal is financial, with rights being a means to an end. Is that accurate?
    - gwoolhurme 4y ago
      That might be accurate, however it is not just financial right? I would say that is the bulk of it though. To the self-worth side of it, someone posted below, but humans tie self worth to their profession as well right? That is probably something wrong with society as a whole but that is how people work as of this day. In the case of an artist (I am not an artist just to be clear), they've worked decades to hone this craft correct? To have it scraped and used to a level that only a machine can do. Something about that feels wrong? I get that is an emotional appeal. Which is probably why I will never write policy.
      - Kalium 4y ago
        Once upon a time, when thread and cloth was all made by hand, the equivalent of a t-shirt cost the equivalent of $5000 in labor alone. Today we consider that absurd. The spinners, fullers, and weavers of the time considered it their livelihoods, the way they fed their children, the way they achieved economic and social status, and thus just and right. Today we're far enough removed from those days to consider their perspective transparently self-serving for all that their distress must have been immensely real and sincere. We use mechanical looms now. We broadly agree that people have better things to do with their lives than spin rough thread, better ways to contribute to society. So I get why it feels wrong to many, but I also have no trouble placing it and those objections in a context of a recurring historical pattern.