5 ms·

It's not exactly a both-sides thing. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but the side with the gun is the AI art generator side (not the artists). The

by tjs8rj 4y ago

It's not exactly a both-sides thing. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but the side with the gun is the AI art generator side (not the artists). The artists are saying "stop" and the AI side is saying "you can't make me". One side would love a pause to have a productive discussion, and the other side doesn't want a pause at all.

genericone 4y ago
One side is horses, the other side is automobiles. Horses continue to exist, but automobiles were the inevitable future. The horse side would have loved the auto side to pause and discuss too, and say 'think of all the horse related jobs, culture, and infrastructure at risk'.
- eropple 4y ago
  One side may be automobiles. The other side are human beings. If you don't immediately and intuitively grasp the moral weight of drawing comparisons between animals and humans in this context, perhaps you can at least understand why you're hated for it. "Let's just screw over everybody who we can grind between the gears of our APIs because ha ha, they can't stop us" is not a recipe for a functioning society.
  - gwoolhurme 4y ago
    It really sucks to be compared to a horse. It goes to the mentality of this that gives me such anxiety. I understand to my boss I am just a cog (horse), but damn… a bit of compassion would be nice before I’m turned to glue.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    And to extend your analogy further, humans use automobiles. Just like cars are tools for humans, so too are AI.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > One side may be automobiles. > The other side are human beings. No, both sides are human beings. They are human beings using different tools in the same domain, and the side that wants to prevent the adoption of newer tools rather than adapt to them is…well, historically, that’s not a winning position, basically, ever. (In broad societal terms; if you want to create your own isolated subculture where certain newer tools are excluded, that can work.)
    - simonh 4y ago
      They don’t want to prevent the adoption of new tools, they want to stop their personal creative work being appropriated without compensation or permission to make those tools.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > They don’t want to prevent the adoption of new tools, they want to stop their personal creative work being appropriated without compensation or permission to make those tools. I think the arguments in this thread for why this is important, by supporters of it, indicate this is wrong. Yes, directly, this aims at preventing style fine-tunes from work of the artist who uses it (even though styles have never been proprietary.) But if you look at the arguments about why this is significant, its not anything connected to the copying of individual styles, but to the way the explosion of capacity of AI art generators is transforming the market. That’s the target. Even if a magic shield protecting every work that the creator wanted to protect from this day forward against style fine tunes (or AI training more generally) wouldn’t deflect that trend even a tiny bit – which it wouldn’t, IMO – that’s what this is aimed at sociologically.
        simonh 4y ago
        I don't think that's fair. The artist community seem to have a genuine and legitimate grievance. Arguing that they're only saying that because their jobs are being affected is, well, not the best looking argument I've ever seen. Surely if they have a legitimate argument and they are suffering economically, that strengthens their argument. How could it possibly weaken it? I'm not an artist and I'm excited to use AI art generation to realise visuals I can obtain affordably. I just would like to be able to do that ethically.
- jachee 4y ago
  We kind of see it in transportation once more, with the ICE and EV sides of the automobile world.
- amrocha 4y ago
  Others have already pointed out the lack of empathy in your current, but here's another angle: AI art literally relies on artist's output to train. It's not horses vs the car, it's horses vs a motor that grinds up horses to generate power.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  And the proliferation of cars led to ruining many cities for people like pedestrians (and the destruction of neighbourhoods). Not all technology leads to great outcomes. Cars are useful but we've gone way too far in many cases, and we run the risk of doing the same with AI too.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Any information online is fair game to be used and remixed. Sampling is an art form
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the music industry disagrees with your stance.

by tjs8rj 4y ago

genericone 4y ago

One side is horses, the other side is automobiles. Horses continue to exist, but automobiles were the inevitable future. The horse side would have loved the auto side to pause and discuss too, and say 'think of all the horse related jobs, culture, and infrastructure at risk'.

eropple 4y ago
One side may be automobiles. The other side are human beings. If you don't immediately and intuitively grasp the moral weight of drawing comparisons between animals and humans in this context, perhaps you can at least understand why you're hated for it. "Let's just screw over everybody who we can grind between the gears of our APIs because ha ha, they can't stop us" is not a recipe for a functioning society.
- gwoolhurme 4y ago
  It really sucks to be compared to a horse. It goes to the mentality of this that gives me such anxiety. I understand to my boss I am just a cog (horse), but damn… a bit of compassion would be nice before I’m turned to glue.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  And to extend your analogy further, humans use automobiles. Just like cars are tools for humans, so too are AI.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > One side may be automobiles. > The other side are human beings. No, both sides are human beings. They are human beings using different tools in the same domain, and the side that wants to prevent the adoption of newer tools rather than adapt to them is…well, historically, that’s not a winning position, basically, ever. (In broad societal terms; if you want to create your own isolated subculture where certain newer tools are excluded, that can work.)
  - simonh 4y ago
    They don’t want to prevent the adoption of new tools, they want to stop their personal creative work being appropriated without compensation or permission to make those tools.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > They don’t want to prevent the adoption of new tools, they want to stop their personal creative work being appropriated without compensation or permission to make those tools. I think the arguments in this thread for why this is important, by supporters of it, indicate this is wrong. Yes, directly, this aims at preventing style fine-tunes from work of the artist who uses it (even though styles have never been proprietary.) But if you look at the arguments about why this is significant, its not anything connected to the copying of individual styles, but to the way the explosion of capacity of AI art generators is transforming the market. That’s the target. Even if a magic shield protecting every work that the creator wanted to protect from this day forward against style fine tunes (or AI training more generally) wouldn’t deflect that trend even a tiny bit – which it wouldn’t, IMO – that’s what this is aimed at sociologically.
      - simonh 4y ago
        I don't think that's fair. The artist community seem to have a genuine and legitimate grievance. Arguing that they're only saying that because their jobs are being affected is, well, not the best looking argument I've ever seen. Surely if they have a legitimate argument and they are suffering economically, that strengthens their argument. How could it possibly weaken it? I'm not an artist and I'm excited to use AI art generation to realise visuals I can obtain affordably. I just would like to be able to do that ethically.
jachee 4y ago
We kind of see it in transportation once more, with the ICE and EV sides of the automobile world.
amrocha 4y ago
Others have already pointed out the lack of empathy in your current, but here's another angle: AI art literally relies on artist's output to train. It's not horses vs the car, it's horses vs a motor that grinds up horses to generate power.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
And the proliferation of cars led to ruining many cities for people like pedestrians (and the destruction of neighbourhoods). Not all technology leads to great outcomes. Cars are useful but we've gone way too far in many cases, and we run the risk of doing the same with AI too.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago

Any information online is fair game to be used and remixed. Sampling is an art form

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the music industry disagrees with your stance.