6 ms·

It's not quite the same... And I'm not sure how people on HN of all places are failing to grasp that these algorithms aren't sentinet, much less people. I thin

It's not quite the same... And I'm not sure how people on HN of all places are failing to grasp that these algorithms aren't sentinet, much less people. I think this is incredibly cool technology, but using other people's property without their consent is stealing (I'm not talking about legality, but morality here). The second reason why it's not the same is that people can't look at X million pictures and become proficient in thousands of different art styles. So, again its not legality but more about ethics. I guess different people have lower moral standards than others, and that's always been part of the human condition. With all that out of the way, I think artists won't get replaced, because these tools don't really produce anything... Substantial on their own. An artist still needs to compose them to tell a story. So, all this nonsense about how it will replace artists is misguided. It can only replace some parts of an artist's workflow. I know there was an art competition where someone won with a piece that was AI-aided, but honestly it looked like colour sludge. The only thing that was really well executed in it was the drama created by the contrast from sharp changes in values near the centre of that work, and something vaguely resembling a humanoid silhouette against it. You could've called it abstract art if you squinted.

ryanjshaw 4y ago
I'm curious, do you hold the same beliefs about text? Do you think ChatGPT should not be allowed to read books and join ideas across them without paying the original authors for their contribution to the thought?
- spoiler 4y ago
  I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased. I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able. I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as cool if they didn't have access to such large datasets.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    IANAL: Authorship is protected in the US by default https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers In order for blog posts (or other written works) to be in the public domain, authors must explicitly waive those rights. But, not that it needs saying, copyright's applicability in training data is basically the entire subject of debate right now. https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-generative-ai/ https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-gen...
    - spoiler 4y ago
      Ah, I had no idea that was protected too! That's good. I think the reason I was morally on the fence was that people already put blog posts out with the intent of sharing their knowledge with the rest of the Internet... So my assumption was that anything trained on it will just help further expand that knowledge. Although I do realise now as I'm typing this—AI could diminish their audience, clout and motivation, which isn't what I'd want.
jonahrd 4y ago
But these stock image artists provided consent when signing a contract and selling their work to Adobe. The contract is pretty clear that you basically don't own the work anymore and Adobe can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.
- spoiler 4y ago
  Oh right, sorry. I was talking generally, not specifically to Firefly. Yeah, I think Adobe is a publisher and as such, you give it distribution rights. So, I agree with you on this case. Slightly tangential, but Imagine a singer or actor's voice of face being used without their consent just because the publisher has rights to distribute their performance. That probably wouldn't fly very well, and I assume this doesn't fly with some artists either (even though they signed a contract). I assume publishers will probably have an AI consent form soon. It's all very exciting, and I hope we don't ruin it with greed and disregard for the works of the very people that made these technologies so successful. Like, if it weren't for the scraped works, the AI feats would've been both much more underwhelming and and much more expensive to train.
dahwolf 4y ago
"I guess different people have lower moral standards than others, and that's always been part of the human condition." Instead of lower morality, I'd say it's selective morality. I bet quite a few artists (rightfully) feeling threatened by this phenomenon would have absolutely no problem watching a pirated movie, using an ad blocker, read paywall-stripped articles, the like....whilst this is principally the same thing: taking the work of others without consent or compensation.
exodust 4y ago
> thousands of different art styles Are you saying all those art styles are original? They are not. Artists influence artists. Sometimes the influence is strong, other times just a glimmer. Perhaps the burden of responsibility shouldn't be on Ai machine learning, but the human prompt author who chooses the instruction: "...in the style of Jo Blow". Who owns the ethical dilemma in that case? Who is being unfair to Jo Blow in that case? I'm quite certain whoever wrote the prompt is 100% responsible.
- spoiler 4y ago
  I think this is a futile discussion. I think originality certainly exists, and I've seen it may times in the art world. I could be wrong, but you seem to imply originality is a made up concept? Do original thoughts even exist? Are our comments original or just regurgitation? Do you believe nothing ever created throughout history is original then? If you believe originality does exist, where and how do you draw the line? I don't think people are as boring as you think they are. Or maybe you just don't appreciate art. I can't tell. Some people say they do, but they really don't. And further, even if we do ignore originality as a concept and pretend for the sake of the argument it doesn't exist, someone still values that style or approach to creation. That probably makes a living based on the subjective value it brings to the table. They sold their work. An AI company now profits off of their work, having used it in an algorithm, without paying anything to those artists. As an experiment: Give me an example of something you've made yourself that you valued enough to sell, and then tell me why I deserve to have it for free. Maybe that will help me understand. Maybe you can work for me for free? If none of their work was original or valuable, why even train on it, and why can you even ask for "in style of X"? Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. If that worked, we'd not need laws or any type of regulation. Anyway, even with this diatribe I still don't think AI is a bad thing or that it will replace people or or their work—in its current iteration at least. It'll probably improve it, but I certainly understand why people feel violated.
  - exodust 4y ago
    You spent a lot of time deconstructing something I never said or implied. The keyword you missed is "style". Your word, that I quoted. As in, "the style of that artist". I wasn't referring to individual pieces of original art. "Black and white street photography, gritty contrast, low wide angles, urban decay, weathered characters"... could be a style shared by many, that Ai learns. Nobody owns a "style". A style is merely a convenient way to describe art. It belongs to the art critic more than the artist. Many have made art in the style of say Andy Warhol - minimal flat colors, mass produced product imagery. Or surrealist styles, "like Dali", with dreamscapes, imaginary landscapes, twisted architecture and optical illusions. Things Ai can learn without being accused of stealing. Unless you're arguing a kind of "theft of humanity". > Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. You want others to take responsibility for your actions? Prompt: "image like Jon Doe's fantasy illustrations"... Prompting with intent. That's on you, not others to regulate your adult choices. Before Ai, you could hire an artist to help you learn the style of another artist, living or dead. Maybe a drawing style you like. So you hire a skilled artist to point you in the right direction for acquiring a similar result with the pencil. Nothing ethically unsound there. Ai just skips the lessons and time it takes you to draw in the style of your favourite artist. Nothing has been stolen.

ryanjshaw 4y ago

I'm curious, do you hold the same beliefs about text? Do you think ChatGPT should not be allowed to read books and join ideas across them without paying the original authors for their contribution to the thought?

spoiler 4y ago
I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased. I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able. I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as cool if they didn't have access to such large datasets.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  IANAL: Authorship is protected in the US by default https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers In order for blog posts (or other written works) to be in the public domain, authors must explicitly waive those rights. But, not that it needs saying, copyright's applicability in training data is basically the entire subject of debate right now. https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-generative-ai/ https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-gen...
  - spoiler 4y ago
    Ah, I had no idea that was protected too! That's good. I think the reason I was morally on the fence was that people already put blog posts out with the intent of sharing their knowledge with the rest of the Internet... So my assumption was that anything trained on it will just help further expand that knowledge. Although I do realise now as I'm typing this—AI could diminish their audience, clout and motivation, which isn't what I'd want.

jonahrd 4y ago

But these stock image artists provided consent when signing a contract and selling their work to Adobe. The contract is pretty clear that you basically don't own the work anymore and Adobe can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.

spoiler 4y ago
Oh right, sorry. I was talking generally, not specifically to Firefly. Yeah, I think Adobe is a publisher and as such, you give it distribution rights. So, I agree with you on this case. Slightly tangential, but Imagine a singer or actor's voice of face being used without their consent just because the publisher has rights to distribute their performance. That probably wouldn't fly very well, and I assume this doesn't fly with some artists either (even though they signed a contract). I assume publishers will probably have an AI consent form soon. It's all very exciting, and I hope we don't ruin it with greed and disregard for the works of the very people that made these technologies so successful. Like, if it weren't for the scraped works, the AI feats would've been both much more underwhelming and and much more expensive to train.

dahwolf 4y ago

"I guess different people have lower moral standards than others, and that's always been part of the human condition." Instead of lower morality, I'd say it's selective morality. I bet quite a few artists (rightfully) feeling threatened by this phenomenon would have absolutely no problem watching a pirated movie, using an ad blocker, read paywall-stripped articles, the like....whilst this is principally the same thing: taking the work of others without consent or compensation.

exodust 4y ago

> thousands of different art styles Are you saying all those art styles are original? They are not. Artists influence artists. Sometimes the influence is strong, other times just a glimmer. Perhaps the burden of responsibility shouldn't be on Ai machine learning, but the human prompt author who chooses the instruction: "...in the style of Jo Blow". Who owns the ethical dilemma in that case? Who is being unfair to Jo Blow in that case? I'm quite certain whoever wrote the prompt is 100% responsible.

spoiler 4y ago
I think this is a futile discussion. I think originality certainly exists, and I've seen it may times in the art world. I could be wrong, but you seem to imply originality is a made up concept? Do original thoughts even exist? Are our comments original or just regurgitation? Do you believe nothing ever created throughout history is original then? If you believe originality does exist, where and how do you draw the line? I don't think people are as boring as you think they are. Or maybe you just don't appreciate art. I can't tell. Some people say they do, but they really don't. And further, even if we do ignore originality as a concept and pretend for the sake of the argument it doesn't exist, someone still values that style or approach to creation. That probably makes a living based on the subjective value it brings to the table. They sold their work. An AI company now profits off of their work, having used it in an algorithm, without paying anything to those artists. As an experiment: Give me an example of something you've made yourself that you valued enough to sell, and then tell me why I deserve to have it for free. Maybe that will help me understand. Maybe you can work for me for free? If none of their work was original or valuable, why even train on it, and why can you even ask for "in style of X"? Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. If that worked, we'd not need laws or any type of regulation. Anyway, even with this diatribe I still don't think AI is a bad thing or that it will replace people or or their work—in its current iteration at least. It'll probably improve it, but I certainly understand why people feel violated.
- exodust 4y ago
  You spent a lot of time deconstructing something I never said or implied. The keyword you missed is "style". Your word, that I quoted. As in, "the style of that artist". I wasn't referring to individual pieces of original art. "Black and white street photography, gritty contrast, low wide angles, urban decay, weathered characters"... could be a style shared by many, that Ai learns. Nobody owns a "style". A style is merely a convenient way to describe art. It belongs to the art critic more than the artist. Many have made art in the style of say Andy Warhol - minimal flat colors, mass produced product imagery. Or surrealist styles, "like Dali", with dreamscapes, imaginary landscapes, twisted architecture and optical illusions. Things Ai can learn without being accused of stealing. Unless you're arguing a kind of "theft of humanity". > Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. You want others to take responsibility for your actions? Prompt: "image like Jon Doe's fantasy illustrations"... Prompting with intent. That's on you, not others to regulate your adult choices. Before Ai, you could hire an artist to help you learn the style of another artist, living or dead. Maybe a drawing style you like. So you hire a skilled artist to point you in the right direction for acquiring a similar result with the pencil. Nothing ethically unsound there. Ai just skips the lessons and time it takes you to draw in the style of your favourite artist. Nothing has been stolen.