4 ms·

We as a society have a relatively healthy setup for people to create art and content. Sure there are problems, but on the whole it mostly works. What AI will do

We as a society have a relatively healthy setup for people to create art and content. Sure there are problems, but on the whole it mostly works. What AI will do is destroy that by removing the profitability of creating that content. Although generative AI operates on a similar principle to a human being exposed to a large number of artworks, it does so at a speed blindingly faster, enabling it to outcompete humans at many tasks. The number of such tasks will only increase in the future. Thus, small-time content creators who make an independent living from content creation will be squeezed out and left in the dark. In some years, it will be very hard to make money from content creation at all. The access to information and entertainment will also become more anonymous, will most people consuming things through AI generation. Of course, that will be convenient at first, but we will end up with a world where a significantly SMALLER fraction of people controlling AI supply us with everything. (Including manipulative advertising to consume more of their product.) For every benefit that AI gives us, there are 10 losses. I used to dislike draconian copyright laws, but now I like them. And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable. I believe further that AI will be society-disrupting in a variety of other ways and thus, as a society, we should destroy it. But I am pessimistic.

marcinzm 3y ago
>And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable. No, they'll make AI unprofitable for small time creators but not massive corporations. The latter either already have rights to vast quantitates of training data or will hire a thousands in Africa to create training data that is just legally different enough to count.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  That is why we should halt AI completely and do a more thorough analysis of its societal-level implications before blindingly putting it out there. Because when new technology is introduced, it makes it almost impossible to stop using it due to the way our current society is setup (as a sensitive machine that is very quick to reward any gains in efficieny and economic output as opposed to sustainability).
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    Define AI.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      This isn't a math quiz. For practical purposes, we can start with a list of technologies that are clearly harmful. Generative AI like ChatGPT, AI image generators, AI text generators that write something based on a prompt, etc. all halted.
      - usr8new 3y ago
        Until when? The only way to avoid societal impact of AI is to either stop it for decades until we reach some utopia UBI state or lobotomize current generative AI to a point where it's useless.
        vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Personally, I believe generative AI should be lobotomized as you said. After pouring over all sorts of possibilities, I think no good will come of it.
      - evilduck 3y ago
        Llama and Stable Diffusion have proliferated already. Many countries view this as an arms race. Propose a plausible way to put the AI toothpaste back in the tube, because this stance seems profoundly impractical.
      - singpolyma3 3y ago
        Why would you want that? What is "clearly harmful" in your view?
        marcinzm 3y ago
        Change scares people. This has been the case for every single technological invention including writing. Predicting the transformative impact of a technology is nearly impossible (or sci-fi writers would have a better hit ratio) but thinking about how it will break what we currently have (versus what will replace the current status-quo) is fairly easy. Accepting ones own limitations and inherent ignorance about the future is something many people very much do not want to accept.
flangola7 3y ago
Even if we keep draconian copyright laws they need to be changed in some ways. Otherwise Disney will dominate by creating their own AIs and we still end up with a small faction controlling what we consume - and we will be paying them for the honor of it on top.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I agree. I was being somewhat facetious there. I don't really enjoy copyright laws the way they are, but I do believe that AI is the FAR greater evil.
chottocharaii 3y ago
What you’re describing requires an ability to copyright style on top of expression. That would be an unacceptable constraint on freedom of speech and artistic freedom in my view The ability of an industry to turn a profit should not constrain the ability of the general public to communicate ideas. Expression is the only thing that should be copyrighted against
hakfoo 3y ago
I don't want to see AI copyright, but that's more an extension of not wanting to see any copyright. A lot of it comes down to creativity as a process, or as a product. It feels like many people tend to view creativity-- especially capital-A Art-- as a process-- it should be arduous and require skill and be an exclusive club. I've seen people be very hostile to pre-AI digital technology because it lowers the bar-- with software, you have a canvas that you can keep erasing until you're happy, a straight-edge that's perfect every time, etc. I tend to think the important part is the end product: was someone able to express their vision to the highest possible level of fidelity? In that regard, every new technology gets us closer-- the person who couldn't draw a circle can take a photo and doctor it in the GIMP until he's happy. The next frontier for this is to say "I can use AI to generate 200 permutations, and then take the ones I like best and further hack on them to get what I want." This also makes me hostile to copyright, since anyone trying to claim work as their own, establish restrictive conditions, or "stop plagiarism" is denying others tools and resources that could be used to deliver their vision. Maybe the most effective way to realize someone's vision is to start with an existing piece of work and modify to fit. (programmers seem to understand this more innately than, say, photographers)
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  > I tend to think the important part is the end product: was someone able to express their vision to the highest possible level of fidelity? In that regard, every new technology gets us closer-- the person who couldn't draw a circle can take a photo and doctor it in the GIMP until he's happy. The next frontier for this is to say "I can use AI to generate 200 permutations, and then take the ones I like best and further hack on them to get what I want." I don't think effort should be arbitrarily constrained to make the bar high, but I do not agree with you that the end product is important. What is important is that the product comes from people because art helps society be healthier by existing as a means of communication from people to other people. Once AI begins to take over part of the process, it becomes like athletes who dope...it removes the essence of their achievement. Art is more than just a single, isolated product for consumption. It exists to inspire, to change minds based on its ORIGINS, not just on its end results. The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the sociological effects of artistic creation, and focusing on the act of maximizing along a SINGLE variable: aesthetic value. That does art a disservice, and it means that the argument for or against AI must also be more subtle. Besides, isn't the strategy of releasing AI just to see what happens a bit haphazard?
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
Why would copyrightability of AI generated work affect its profitability? Owning a copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy and sell a work. If no one owns the copyright for a work, no one has the _exclusive_ right to copy and sell that work.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Well, then an AI generated hollywood movie could just be copied and distributed for free.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    I'd assume it would only apply to the parts generated by AI, and not the whole movie. But of course you'd have to rely on the studios telling you which parts are generated, if they tell you at all.
clarkmoody 3y ago
Small time creators don't make money anyway. Starving artists and all that.

marcinzm 3y ago

>And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable. No, they'll make AI unprofitable for small time creators but not massive corporations. The latter either already have rights to vast quantitates of training data or will hire a thousands in Africa to create training data that is just legally different enough to count.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
That is why we should halt AI completely and do a more thorough analysis of its societal-level implications before blindingly putting it out there. Because when new technology is introduced, it makes it almost impossible to stop using it due to the way our current society is setup (as a sensitive machine that is very quick to reward any gains in efficieny and economic output as opposed to sustainability).
- marcinzm 3y ago
  Define AI.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    This isn't a math quiz. For practical purposes, we can start with a list of technologies that are clearly harmful. Generative AI like ChatGPT, AI image generators, AI text generators that write something based on a prompt, etc. all halted.
    - usr8new 3y ago
      Until when? The only way to avoid societal impact of AI is to either stop it for decades until we reach some utopia UBI state or lobotomize current generative AI to a point where it's useless.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Personally, I believe generative AI should be lobotomized as you said. After pouring over all sorts of possibilities, I think no good will come of it.
    - evilduck 3y ago
      Llama and Stable Diffusion have proliferated already. Many countries view this as an arms race. Propose a plausible way to put the AI toothpaste back in the tube, because this stance seems profoundly impractical.
    - singpolyma3 3y ago
      Why would you want that? What is "clearly harmful" in your view?
      - marcinzm 3y ago
        Change scares people. This has been the case for every single technological invention including writing. Predicting the transformative impact of a technology is nearly impossible (or sci-fi writers would have a better hit ratio) but thinking about how it will break what we currently have (versus what will replace the current status-quo) is fairly easy. Accepting ones own limitations and inherent ignorance about the future is something many people very much do not want to accept.

flangola7 3y ago

Even if we keep draconian copyright laws they need to be changed in some ways. Otherwise Disney will dominate by creating their own AIs and we still end up with a small faction controlling what we consume - and we will be paying them for the honor of it on top.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I agree. I was being somewhat facetious there. I don't really enjoy copyright laws the way they are, but I do believe that AI is the FAR greater evil.

chottocharaii 3y ago

What you’re describing requires an ability to copyright style on top of expression. That would be an unacceptable constraint on freedom of speech and artistic freedom in my view The ability of an industry to turn a profit should not constrain the ability of the general public to communicate ideas. Expression is the only thing that should be copyrighted against

hakfoo 3y ago

I don't want to see AI copyright, but that's more an extension of not wanting to see any copyright. A lot of it comes down to creativity as a process, or as a product. It feels like many people tend to view creativity-- especially capital-A Art-- as a process-- it should be arduous and require skill and be an exclusive club. I've seen people be very hostile to pre-AI digital technology because it lowers the bar-- with software, you have a canvas that you can keep erasing until you're happy, a straight-edge that's perfect every time, etc. I tend to think the important part is the end product: was someone able to express their vision to the highest possible level of fidelity? In that regard, every new technology gets us closer-- the person who couldn't draw a circle can take a photo and doctor it in the GIMP until he's happy. The next frontier for this is to say "I can use AI to generate 200 permutations, and then take the ones I like best and further hack on them to get what I want." This also makes me hostile to copyright, since anyone trying to claim work as their own, establish restrictive conditions, or "stop plagiarism" is denying others tools and resources that could be used to deliver their vision. Maybe the most effective way to realize someone's vision is to start with an existing piece of work and modify to fit. (programmers seem to understand this more innately than, say, photographers)

vouaobrasil 3y ago
> I tend to think the important part is the end product: was someone able to express their vision to the highest possible level of fidelity? In that regard, every new technology gets us closer-- the person who couldn't draw a circle can take a photo and doctor it in the GIMP until he's happy. The next frontier for this is to say "I can use AI to generate 200 permutations, and then take the ones I like best and further hack on them to get what I want." I don't think effort should be arbitrarily constrained to make the bar high, but I do not agree with you that the end product is important. What is important is that the product comes from people because art helps society be healthier by existing as a means of communication from people to other people. Once AI begins to take over part of the process, it becomes like athletes who dope...it removes the essence of their achievement. Art is more than just a single, isolated product for consumption. It exists to inspire, to change minds based on its ORIGINS, not just on its end results. The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the sociological effects of artistic creation, and focusing on the act of maximizing along a SINGLE variable: aesthetic value. That does art a disservice, and it means that the argument for or against AI must also be more subtle. Besides, isn't the strategy of releasing AI just to see what happens a bit haphazard?

ZoomerCretin 3y ago

Why would copyrightability of AI generated work affect its profitability? Owning a copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy and sell a work. If no one owns the copyright for a work, no one has the _exclusive_ right to copy and sell that work.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Well, then an AI generated hollywood movie could just be copied and distributed for free.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  I'd assume it would only apply to the parts generated by AI, and not the whole movie. But of course you'd have to rely on the studios telling you which parts are generated, if they tell you at all.

clarkmoody 3y ago

Small time creators don't make money anyway. Starving artists and all that.