5 ms·

Yes, it is value destroying for the creators. It cheapens their work. However, it gives millions more people access to their ideas. Maybe that’s better.

Nevermark 3y ago
So you are against copyrights? Please say so if that’s your point of view. Because the argument is the same either way. Either we protect creative works from being devalued by automation, to maintain an incentive to create, or we don’t.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Protectionism never works it just delays the inevitable.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    I don’t know what that means. My entire career has been selling copyrighted works for good money. And I have been able to confidently do that for many years because of copyright protection. So “it just delays the inevitable” means what? I have to give my money back later?
    - Zetobal 3y ago
      The transition from horses to automobiles is a prime example of how protectionism can't halt technological progress. When cars first arrived, they faced stiff opposition, especially from the horse and carriage industry. Some countries even introduced protectionist policies, like high tariffs on imported cars or regulations favoring horse-drawn vehicles, to shield their traditional industries. In the end the end user will decide or better said they already did in regards of generative art. The inevitable is that your industry will change and the distinction between what is an "Artist" and an "Operator" will change even more. If most of your clients come to you for the end product you are most likely an "Operator". ie. "Do X like I want it to be done." if you are an "Artist" clients come to you because you are either in the Zeitgeist or people like your way of thinking and the process behind your art. The end product is collaborative. If you are an "Operator" you will have problems in the near future if you are an "Artist" you will be fine. It's like in VFX and the mark the writers strike made on the industry the "Aritsts" are all fine because the studios want to retain them and the "Operators" are left on the street.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        I agree with you things will change. And I agree, requiring permission to use copyrighted works in model building will give legs to the current paradigm, but only delay the change. However, AI is going to upset everyone’s apple carts, so anything that allows changes to happen more smoothly, less disruptively, is probably with the effort. AI is likely to devalue all human labor, except for the provenance value of creations (creator, history, associations) and a preference for the human element (many personal services, or services with a personal touch element).
yowzadave 3y ago
In this particular theoretical, it's not value destroying for the creator--he's dead and presumably has no more interest in money. Whether the heirs of his estate make more or less has no impact on the fact that Moebius will be producing no more art.

Nevermark 3y ago

So you are against copyrights? Please say so if that’s your point of view. Because the argument is the same either way. Either we protect creative works from being devalued by automation, to maintain an incentive to create, or we don’t.

Zetobal 3y ago
Protectionism never works it just delays the inevitable.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  I don’t know what that means. My entire career has been selling copyrighted works for good money. And I have been able to confidently do that for many years because of copyright protection. So “it just delays the inevitable” means what? I have to give my money back later?
  - Zetobal 3y ago
    The transition from horses to automobiles is a prime example of how protectionism can't halt technological progress. When cars first arrived, they faced stiff opposition, especially from the horse and carriage industry. Some countries even introduced protectionist policies, like high tariffs on imported cars or regulations favoring horse-drawn vehicles, to shield their traditional industries. In the end the end user will decide or better said they already did in regards of generative art. The inevitable is that your industry will change and the distinction between what is an "Artist" and an "Operator" will change even more. If most of your clients come to you for the end product you are most likely an "Operator". ie. "Do X like I want it to be done." if you are an "Artist" clients come to you because you are either in the Zeitgeist or people like your way of thinking and the process behind your art. The end product is collaborative. If you are an "Operator" you will have problems in the near future if you are an "Artist" you will be fine. It's like in VFX and the mark the writers strike made on the industry the "Aritsts" are all fine because the studios want to retain them and the "Operators" are left on the street.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      I agree with you things will change. And I agree, requiring permission to use copyrighted works in model building will give legs to the current paradigm, but only delay the change. However, AI is going to upset everyone’s apple carts, so anything that allows changes to happen more smoothly, less disruptively, is probably with the effort. AI is likely to devalue all human labor, except for the provenance value of creations (creator, history, associations) and a preference for the human element (many personal services, or services with a personal touch element).

yowzadave 3y ago

In this particular theoretical, it's not value destroying for the creator--he's dead and presumably has no more interest in money. Whether the heirs of his estate make more or less has no impact on the fact that Moebius will be producing no more art.