2 ms·

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

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.