4 ms·

It is almost like intention in the method and process of those tools matters. Rather than bulk exploitation of other people's work.

nickthegreek 3y ago
There are AI tools like ControlNET that do give you intention in the method and process.
horsawlarway 3y ago
Ok - I'm going to pick on you since you responded with this first: Here's my argument: 1. Copyright in some sense is probably a net win for society. 2. Copyright in it's current legal form in the US is - fucking unquestionably - abusive. 7 years with a 7 year renewal after review? Probably ok, feels long in today's digital age. To the author's death? oof, that's a long time to protect works, but maybe I guess, in some specific fields of work. To the author's death PLUS 70 fucking years? Get the fuck out of here. Literally - who the fuck other than giant corporations is POSSIBLY benefiting from this? This is a fucking insane level of protection, and is outrageously harmful to generating new content (Just take a peak at all the fucking remakes that constitute our new films, and the miserable content licensing restrictions that pop up everywhere and kill so many new things) --- So my stance is firmly: Yep, they probably are taking some of your work. But also: Your work is also grounded in the work of others (again - fucking unquestionably). Further - the copyright system at large is SO fucking harmful that I don't really think it should exist anymore (side note: I'm really underplaying my feelings here, "nuke it from orbit" is probably still an understatement... "I'd like to see it suffer before it dies" is probably close). So... if you want to talk about bulk exploitation - go fucking yell at the current media companies, because holy fuck are they the worst fucking companies in the world to make this claim. They are leeches. If you want me to step to your side: CURB THE FUCKING ABUSE. Otherwise... you are the shitty cab company and the LLM is uber: Are they ethical? Eh - Nope. Are they unquestionable better for most people? Yes. Will I take a useful and unethical company over a stagnating and unethical company? Yes, yes I will. Would I prefer real governmental action to either of those? 100%.
- blamestross 3y ago
  I agree with most of what you are saying, but the key gap is that the victims here are not "unethical companies". They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. If big art was a thing, your argument would be good, but Disney doesn't account for most of the input to these image algorithms.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    > They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. But these people are already making essentially zero income from copyright (it's mostly tours/merch), and have been (again, and again, and again) utterly fucked by the current publishing companies that are so interested (financially) in killing this AI work. They are already victims of the current system. I don't see how introducing AI changes their position all that much: They still have low bargaining power, low financial returns (avg is under 6k/year) and mostly aren't doing it as a career. Are a few of them exceptions? Absolutely. Will there keep being successful exceptions with AI: I'd bet yes (with a lot of cash). Will the way they work change? Probably. Some will enjoy the change, and some won't. I just don't see any compelling reason in your comment to argue to keep the current cluster-fuck of abuse that is modern copyright. Arguing that the currently abused might continue to be abused might be a valid reason to reject both systems, but doesn't pass the bar to stopping AI works in my opinion. To argue an alternative: If anything - many indie artists might be much more successful if they're allowed to play/remix/sample/use works that are currently sitting unused behind the outrageous copyright duration we have right now.

nickthegreek 3y ago

There are AI tools like ControlNET that do give you intention in the method and process.

horsawlarway 3y ago

Ok - I'm going to pick on you since you responded with this first: Here's my argument: 1. Copyright in some sense is probably a net win for society. 2. Copyright in it's current legal form in the US is - fucking unquestionably - abusive. 7 years with a 7 year renewal after review? Probably ok, feels long in today's digital age. To the author's death? oof, that's a long time to protect works, but maybe I guess, in some specific fields of work. To the author's death PLUS 70 fucking years? Get the fuck out of here. Literally - who the fuck other than giant corporations is POSSIBLY benefiting from this? This is a fucking insane level of protection, and is outrageously harmful to generating new content (Just take a peak at all the fucking remakes that constitute our new films, and the miserable content licensing restrictions that pop up everywhere and kill so many new things) --- So my stance is firmly: Yep, they probably are taking some of your work. But also: Your work is also grounded in the work of others (again - fucking unquestionably). Further - the copyright system at large is SO fucking harmful that I don't really think it should exist anymore (side note: I'm really underplaying my feelings here, "nuke it from orbit" is probably still an understatement... "I'd like to see it suffer before it dies" is probably close). So... if you want to talk about bulk exploitation - go fucking yell at the current media companies, because holy fuck are they the worst fucking companies in the world to make this claim. They are leeches. If you want me to step to your side: CURB THE FUCKING ABUSE. Otherwise... you are the shitty cab company and the LLM is uber: Are they ethical? Eh - Nope. Are they unquestionable better for most people? Yes. Will I take a useful and unethical company over a stagnating and unethical company? Yes, yes I will. Would I prefer real governmental action to either of those? 100%.

blamestross 3y ago
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the key gap is that the victims here are not "unethical companies". They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. If big art was a thing, your argument would be good, but Disney doesn't account for most of the input to these image algorithms.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  > They are 5+ digits of independent artists who had no idea this was going to happen to them. But these people are already making essentially zero income from copyright (it's mostly tours/merch), and have been (again, and again, and again) utterly fucked by the current publishing companies that are so interested (financially) in killing this AI work. They are already victims of the current system. I don't see how introducing AI changes their position all that much: They still have low bargaining power, low financial returns (avg is under 6k/year) and mostly aren't doing it as a career. Are a few of them exceptions? Absolutely. Will there keep being successful exceptions with AI: I'd bet yes (with a lot of cash). Will the way they work change? Probably. Some will enjoy the change, and some won't. I just don't see any compelling reason in your comment to argue to keep the current cluster-fuck of abuse that is modern copyright. Arguing that the currently abused might continue to be abused might be a valid reason to reject both systems, but doesn't pass the bar to stopping AI works in my opinion. To argue an alternative: If anything - many indie artists might be much more successful if they're allowed to play/remix/sample/use works that are currently sitting unused behind the outrageous copyright duration we have right now.