4 ms·

Suppose I manufacture a compass or a protractor that you use to make beautiful curves in your art - surely my effort is greater than yours. You cannot create an

Suppose I manufacture a compass or a protractor that you use to make beautiful curves in your art - surely my effort is greater than yours. You cannot create an accurate arc without my tool. Surely I deserve the lion's share of credit and profit. Incidentally, my friend the paintbrush maker would like to speak with you. I'm being facetious of course. I suspect this technology is going to rapidly push us into radically rethinking how copyright works, but it'll be delayed some 20-30 years by incumbents desperately clinging to their hordes of existing IP.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
Well, we have a bunch of issues, here. First, there's a bunch of (non-creative) people that just want free creative assets. They don't like it, when creatives insist on being paid for the [considerable] time, effort, education and experience that goes into the creative asset. Those people are jumping for joy. Then, we have the creatives, themselves, who may have attended the correct schools, and have the appropriate education, to produce quality assets. They don't want people to just take their work. This looks like a side-jacking. If someone sees a nice picture that was done by a creative, then they can prompt MidJourney to produce one that looks a lot like it, for the cost of the MJ subscription. They don't particularly care (yet)[0] about copyright. Then, we have the portfolio holders, who are often not creatives, but still hold the copyrights on a lot of creative work. Think Disney, or Universal. Their portfolios are an investment. They don't want to lose that investment. Then, we have the crooks, who want to make cheap, crappy copies of creative assets, regardless of who owns the copyright. At the moment, there is an element of risk, as they could get caught and punished. They are also jumping for joy. [0] I said "yet," because one of the problems with a "wild west" copyright and trademark atmosphere, is that it is extremely easy to make "almost-like" copies, and if you don't protect your IP (or can't), then it is "up for grabs." This is done now, but it's illegal, and can be stopped; especially if trademark is involved. I was at a Chinese restaurant, once, and was listening to the music. I noticed that there were many strains of hugely popular (and copyrighted) songs, like Scarborough Fair, and Moondance, all mashed together into a continuous stream. The owner confirmed what I suspected. He subscribed to a service that sends legal "muzak" to his restaurant. He had been mugged by ASCAP, once, and never wanted to go through that again. I've noticed that "free everything" people often insist that everything except their own work should be "freed."
- throwuxiytayq 3y ago
  > First, there's a bunch of (non-creative) people that just want free creative assets. Would you consider a 3D artist generating a texture for his model to be a non-creative? What about a concept artist who mashes together AI generated images? How would you classify Corridor Digital’s Anime Rock Paper And Scissors series? To me it seems like there’s legions of creative people who are excited to use AI in their works.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Yes, and that is exactly what I was not talking about. I was talking about a coder that can’t draw, using assets for icons and backgrounds, or a CEO that can’t draw or program, using AI for their entire company. I already know of examples of both. I’m an artist[0]. When I was younger, I even considered making a living at it. I haven’t done any real artwork in decades, though. But I’m not a particularly skilled graphic designer. I know enough to be dangerous, but most practicing designers can run circles around me. 3D artists are pretty awesome[1]. I think they will benefit from AI. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34654770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34654770 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35315404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35315404
    - l33tman 3y ago
      A coder that can't draw, becomes a creative when s/he uses tools for drawing. I don't think the argument is in this, it's that the tools embody the collective creativity of all the world's previous-gen artists.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
        > the tools embody the collective creativity of all the world's previous-gen artists. And doesn’t reward them for their contributions, thus, removing the “feeder” creativity. Soon, schools stop teaching art, because no one wants to become one, and the algorithms end up using the output of other algorithms as their input, and original creation dies. Original creative output can be ugly and disturbing, but it is original human creation. Tools can help this (my example is 3D modeling. When the tools were still “raw,” then only engineers could produce 3D art, and it showed. Once the tools and standards progressed, real trained artists started to use them, to produce awesome creations). I hear, all the time, non creative people drooling over not having to pay or deal with creative folks. This is nothing new. Just a new venue for typical human greed and laziness. We’ll figure it out, and, I guarantee, some creative folks will figure out how to use these tools to become quite successful. And those non creative folks are still gonna have to pay them.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

Well, we have a bunch of issues, here. First, there's a bunch of (non-creative) people that just want free creative assets. They don't like it, when creatives insist on being paid for the [considerable] time, effort, education and experience that goes into the creative asset. Those people are jumping for joy. Then, we have the creatives, themselves, who may have attended the correct schools, and have the appropriate education, to produce quality assets. They don't want people to just take their work. This looks like a side-jacking. If someone sees a nice picture that was done by a creative, then they can prompt MidJourney to produce one that looks a lot like it, for the cost of the MJ subscription. They don't particularly care (yet)[0] about copyright. Then, we have the portfolio holders, who are often not creatives, but still hold the copyrights on a lot of creative work. Think Disney, or Universal. Their portfolios are an investment. They don't want to lose that investment. Then, we have the crooks, who want to make cheap, crappy copies of creative assets, regardless of who owns the copyright. At the moment, there is an element of risk, as they could get caught and punished. They are also jumping for joy. [0] I said "yet," because one of the problems with a "wild west" copyright and trademark atmosphere, is that it is extremely easy to make "almost-like" copies, and if you don't protect your IP (or can't), then it is "up for grabs." This is done now, but it's illegal, and can be stopped; especially if trademark is involved. I was at a Chinese restaurant, once, and was listening to the music. I noticed that there were many strains of hugely popular (and copyrighted) songs, like Scarborough Fair, and Moondance, all mashed together into a continuous stream. The owner confirmed what I suspected. He subscribed to a service that sends legal "muzak" to his restaurant. He had been mugged by ASCAP, once, and never wanted to go through that again. I've noticed that "free everything" people often insist that everything except their own work should be "freed."

throwuxiytayq 3y ago
> First, there's a bunch of (non-creative) people that just want free creative assets. Would you consider a 3D artist generating a texture for his model to be a non-creative? What about a concept artist who mashes together AI generated images? How would you classify Corridor Digital’s Anime Rock Paper And Scissors series? To me it seems like there’s legions of creative people who are excited to use AI in their works.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Yes, and that is exactly what I was not talking about. I was talking about a coder that can’t draw, using assets for icons and backgrounds, or a CEO that can’t draw or program, using AI for their entire company. I already know of examples of both. I’m an artist[0]. When I was younger, I even considered making a living at it. I haven’t done any real artwork in decades, though. But I’m not a particularly skilled graphic designer. I know enough to be dangerous, but most practicing designers can run circles around me. 3D artists are pretty awesome[1]. I think they will benefit from AI. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34654770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34654770 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35315404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35315404
  - l33tman 3y ago
    A coder that can't draw, becomes a creative when s/he uses tools for drawing. I don't think the argument is in this, it's that the tools embody the collective creativity of all the world's previous-gen artists.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
      > the tools embody the collective creativity of all the world's previous-gen artists. And doesn’t reward them for their contributions, thus, removing the “feeder” creativity. Soon, schools stop teaching art, because no one wants to become one, and the algorithms end up using the output of other algorithms as their input, and original creation dies. Original creative output can be ugly and disturbing, but it is original human creation. Tools can help this (my example is 3D modeling. When the tools were still “raw,” then only engineers could produce 3D art, and it showed. Once the tools and standards progressed, real trained artists started to use them, to produce awesome creations). I hear, all the time, non creative people drooling over not having to pay or deal with creative folks. This is nothing new. Just a new venue for typical human greed and laziness. We’ll figure it out, and, I guarantee, some creative folks will figure out how to use these tools to become quite successful. And those non creative folks are still gonna have to pay them.