3 ms·

No idea what you're taking about. Throwing arcane technical terms about does not advance your argument. Nor does the triumph or obscurity of the AI research eli

No idea what you're taking about. Throwing arcane technical terms about does not advance your argument. Nor does the triumph or obscurity of the AI research elide the copyright interest of artists in how their own work is used.

doctorpangloss 3y ago
I don't think you should be downvoted for having opinions that are based on a lack of information. Everything I talked about is to illustrate that it is impracticable to resolve the issue of authorship by doing something like, "I got permission for the data." The first step on the expanding brain meme is understanding all the stuff I wrote, it basically means "in order for the generative AI technology to work, you use a lot of other people's unpermissioned data in many, many ways, that are impractical to replace." The second step in the expanding brain meme is to understand that your opinion, "if you use art you have permission for in a generative AI model, you're In The Ethical Right," is co-opted by Adobe. Because they happen to have the good fortune to run an image licensing bureau, so they can "get permission" for "the data" and you were convinced that's "all they need." When of course, they use tons of unpermissioned data, because that's how these models work, but you just don't know enough about the problem yet to understand that. So you're going around essentially astroturfing this feel good position that has no stronger technical basis than doing what CivitAI users do. It just has a really appealing starch to it.
- rendall 3y ago
  You don't win an argument by gatekeeping and patronizing like that. There's information you don't have, apparently. This is not a technological issue alone, but also a social, legal and artistic issue. It is very clear that artists whose art was used to train AI have copyright interest in that AI's output. The implementation details of the model are irrelevant to the interest. The technical difficulty of auditing its inputs' provenance is irrelevant to that interest.
  - orwin 3y ago
    No. The only things that's clear is that works from AI should be non-copyrightable and under at least a creative commons, and in my opinion a copyleft license akin to AGPL and gpl3 (I think disagreeing on this opinion is fine however). Output from AI should be non-mercantile. Why? Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 2016), and thus, copyrighting the output of any model would be stealing from the general public.
    - rendall 3y ago
      > Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 2016), and thus, copyrighting the output of any model would be stealing from the general public. "Most"? If any of the training inputs are copyrighted and the AI company does not own or license the work, nor applies all licenses correctly, then the AI company should be liable for copyright infringement. There's really no other way forward as a society, otherwise creatives' work can always just be stolen at will by laundering it through an AI model. There would be no incentive for the next HR Geiger or Moebius to work hard on a distinctive aesthetic when anyone with a computer could make art just like theirs. If all of an AI input is public domain, I'm not sure I agree with you but I think your argument has some merit.
      - orwin 3y ago
        The copyright infringement isdue is orthogonal to my point. Let's say you have all the IP of a LORA. Nice. Now, the model you're using will output something similar to your copyrighted work, but this will be barely .001 percent of what the model used. Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable. In this case, even if the output resemble the copyrighted work used for the Lora, the rights should be owned by the public. My opinion is that it should be copyleft (because you can't possibly attribute all the work used for the generated image, so the only fair use is copyleft use).
- suction 3y ago
  [dead]

doctorpangloss 3y ago

I don't think you should be downvoted for having opinions that are based on a lack of information. Everything I talked about is to illustrate that it is impracticable to resolve the issue of authorship by doing something like, "I got permission for the data." The first step on the expanding brain meme is understanding all the stuff I wrote, it basically means "in order for the generative AI technology to work, you use a lot of other people's unpermissioned data in many, many ways, that are impractical to replace." The second step in the expanding brain meme is to understand that your opinion, "if you use art you have permission for in a generative AI model, you're In The Ethical Right," is co-opted by Adobe. Because they happen to have the good fortune to run an image licensing bureau, so they can "get permission" for "the data" and you were convinced that's "all they need." When of course, they use tons of unpermissioned data, because that's how these models work, but you just don't know enough about the problem yet to understand that. So you're going around essentially astroturfing this feel good position that has no stronger technical basis than doing what CivitAI users do. It just has a really appealing starch to it.

rendall 3y ago
You don't win an argument by gatekeeping and patronizing like that. There's information you don't have, apparently. This is not a technological issue alone, but also a social, legal and artistic issue. It is very clear that artists whose art was used to train AI have copyright interest in that AI's output. The implementation details of the model are irrelevant to the interest. The technical difficulty of auditing its inputs' provenance is irrelevant to that interest.
- orwin 3y ago
  No. The only things that's clear is that works from AI should be non-copyrightable and under at least a creative commons, and in my opinion a copyleft license akin to AGPL and gpl3 (I think disagreeing on this opinion is fine however). Output from AI should be non-mercantile. Why? Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 2016), and thus, copyrighting the output of any model would be stealing from the general public.
  - rendall 3y ago
    > Because most text/images used by AI company to create, test then pretrain/train their tools are creative common /unlicensed (I trained/fine-tuned an OCR in 2016), and thus, copyrighting the output of any model would be stealing from the general public. "Most"? If any of the training inputs are copyrighted and the AI company does not own or license the work, nor applies all licenses correctly, then the AI company should be liable for copyright infringement. There's really no other way forward as a society, otherwise creatives' work can always just be stolen at will by laundering it through an AI model. There would be no incentive for the next HR Geiger or Moebius to work hard on a distinctive aesthetic when anyone with a computer could make art just like theirs. If all of an AI input is public domain, I'm not sure I agree with you but I think your argument has some merit.
    - orwin 3y ago
      The copyright infringement isdue is orthogonal to my point. Let's say you have all the IP of a LORA. Nice. Now, the model you're using will output something similar to your copyrighted work, but this will be barely .001 percent of what the model used. Most (if not all) other images it used will be cc, unlicensed (most images on the internet) or copyrighted but unidentifiable. In this case, even if the output resemble the copyrighted work used for the Lora, the rights should be owned by the public. My opinion is that it should be copyleft (because you can't possibly attribute all the work used for the generated image, so the only fair use is copyleft use).
suction 3y ago
[dead]