8 ms·
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that
by nologic01 3y ago
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything?
Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever?
This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade between regions as thieves would ambush traders and steal any goods.
- gedy 3y agoIt's just not that different from people seeing works and learning or being inspired, so how do you "ban AI" without adding more crazy DRM/DMCA stuff for legitimate use?
- bakugo 3y ago[flagged]
- PierceJoy 3y agoI agree that the scale is different, but even the way you’ve phrased it sounds pretty comparable to how humans learn and produce art. Besides scale, how is it different?
- kaibee 3y agoThe colour of the bits is different. https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- csallen 3y agoUm, it's extremely comparable. You basically just described the human process, but used bigger numbers lol. Go on any art site, whether it's drawings or writing, and a massive amount of the human learning and inspiration you see is just copying from others, too. People drawing their favorite characters, writing fan fiction that copies from their favorite books, etc. This is so extremely comparable to AI it's weird to me that you don't see it.
- pitaj 3y agoThey're not amalgamations. They're not collages. The algorithm isn't memorizing the training data.
- gedy 3y agoLook I consider myself an artist, and am very creative. But the vast majority of art and artists are following after other's previous work. It's really not that unique, and frankly why AI can generate some things so well - because everybody's doing it! Artists who focus on truly new art aren't "in some AI" because it's unique or not easily reduced to some model weights. The economics of all this are challenging for graphic artists and illustrators for sure!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 3y agoSource that they are not?
- golergka 3y agoOther humans have always been doing exactly that with anything you published.
- nologic01 3y agoReally? can you point to some example? People have been putting up with some theft because they could still eke a living. This attitude has all the coherency of "some people are thieves, we cannot catch them all, so lets make theft legal". Unless I hear some sensible argument why this slippery road won't destroy a good fraction of the economy I am assuming that regression to kleptocracy is the shape of things to come.
- golergka 3y agoConsuming information and learning from it is not theft and never was.
- latexr 3y agoNot at this rate, speed, and reliability. Even setting aside the morality and legality of the matter, let’s please stop with the fiction that what these computerised systems do is the same as other humans. Scale matters. If someone said “I’m worried about the consequences of machine guns being sold at convenience stores”, it is not a sensible response to say “human have always been able to kill other humans with knives and handguns”.
- nirav72 3y agoI don't see how this could be any different than say a person reads a book. Then uses what they learned from that book to write another book? Sure, if they're literally copying material from one book and then adding that as their own work into their book, that could be against copyright.
- spencerflem 3y agoBecause a machine can do it millions of times faster
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoAlternatively: "People can pick up and throw small lead spheres whenever they want, so all gun control is pointless."
- huimang 3y agoThe problem is these discussions are being had by STEM/tech people who don't respect or value art or the effort behind it, not by artists. They simply do not get the concerns that artists have. It truly boggles the mind that people equate machines that can output thousands and thousands of images in short time spans in any ingested style... with humans who have to hone styles and can only produce a result every so often.
- hfuyf65 3y agoIs it because it seems the value can be imitated so easily?
- surgical_fire 3y agoThis is how technology works. Bulldozers effectively replaced people with shovels. Excel effectively replaced accounting clerks. Generative AI effectively replace artists (to some capacity). Most people care only about the output of a system, not about who the system replaces.
- emanuele232 3y agoyeah, we did not ask for farmers permission before producing Farming machines
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y agoWe are able to create bulldozers without using any shovels. We can create Excel without accounting clerks. But we cannot create generative models without using existing artwork. Because existing artwork is so critical to the inventions replacing artists, it’s more exploitative. If we required workers consent to directly use their works, we would be able to build bulldozers and excel but not stable diffusion. It’s very different that way.
- surgical_fire 3y agoI fail to see how so, outside of some ulterior desire to see "art" as something inherently superior. Manual labor was used to build bulldozers that replaced manual labor, to give an example. Using existing artwork for training model is only the process that generative AI came to be.
- Wissenschafter 3y agoPeople like to create things regardless of profit motive, like art, who woulda thunk it? I don't understand how people think this will suddenly make human art vanish, that is just ridiculous and naive. People will spend their limited lifespan to make art, because that's what humans just do. Cavemen weren't being paid to paint on the walls. Your viewpoint is honestly insane. The people against AI art are bonkers.
- nologic01 3y agoIn your infinite sanity you have not answered my question of how a creative person will dedicate their life (starting from long studies) producing something that society will not reward in any way.
- Wissenschafter 3y agoIn their freetime? Do you not have any? Should society reward people who want to dedicate to something that has no inherent survival benefit? Should that not be something done in ones own time? Why is society obligated to pay artists? It isn't.
- nologic01 3y agoI hope people get to read your comment to understand indeed what kind of world you are advocating.
- surgical_fire 3y agoThe kind of world he is advocating is just the real world as it is. You have to be extremely naive or privileged to think otherwise
- emanuele232 3y agoI actually had a discussion regarding this topic with a peer of mine that at the time was doing art-studies . She was extremely angry and devastated that in her field weren't enough jobs available for every one that mayored in it. That was a real complaint, for her the state should step in and guarantee a well-paid job for everybody in the exact field that everyone chooses, Like "I want to be a painter" and the day after they give you a place to work on your paintings
- csallen 3y agoI despise the underlying belief here. That belief that the only reason people create art is based on desires for fame and monetary gain. Which is so demonstrably incorrect that it boggles my mind. This is where centuries of copyright law have gotten us, brainwashing people into thinking ideas are property ("intellectual property") and should be treated as rivalrous goods, and that the only reason to be an artist is to profit. Brainwashing people into thinking the only way we'll have art in the world is if we maximize the profits of commercial artists. Take one brief look at the internet, music, video, podcasts, a museum, the walls and refrigerators in people's homes, a kindergarten class room, an art class, or hell, this very forum. And you'll see that it's universally true that people like creating stuff because people like creating stuff. For free. Because it's fun and stimulating. That's inherent in us. We do not need laws to prop up an artificial business model for humans to maintain our drive to create.
- throwaway5959 3y agoDo you want to work for free?
- MacsHeadroom 3y agoNo, that's why I do work and/or monetize my work in ways which aren't easily automated by a machine. Simples as.
- renegat0x0 3y ago... but you do have a rent to pay for? You know that artists also have to live somewhere? Why do we have stars on github? Maybe not for fame, but it is a good indicator of how somebody is good. Fame is important. We do not make github repositories for "stars", but I think it is a good motivator for people to continue what they're doing. If there is an author who spent years of his life into producing some kind of music piece, should not there be some kind of laws protecting his work from theft?
- Wissenschafter 3y agoYou can pay rent by other means than art. Adapt or be homeless.
- marcinzm 3y ago>Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? Because they enjoy it? Or do you see artists as some type of corporate drone who hates the very act of making art? That's like asking why anyone would contribute to MIT or Apache licensed open source.
- nologic01 3y agoExcuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of the enjoyment comes from other people appreciating, acknowledging and, yes, remunerating that creative work. The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange.
- ativzzz 3y ago> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange. The entire software industry is built on open source software written for free by other software devs
- nologic01 3y agothe sustainability of open source projects that are not corporate-backed is, famously, a major issue. In analogy, if creative production was to be paid by a benevolent patron that doesn't care if the work is then released in the public domain the economic equation changes. But this mode is not how things work at present.
- bawolff 3y agoBut yet there are a great number of amatur artists where none of this is true and yet they still keep creating.
- naasking 3y ago> Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission Creative people will create regardless of financial incentives. Fan fiction and free art is already everywhere, for instance.
- nologic01 3y agoIn your universe apparently "creative people" don't need to spend a lifetime of study to hone their art, don't need food and shelter every single day etc. Its amazing how callous tech people have become as they salivate for their unicorns or whatever they are pursuing.
- naasking 3y agoIt's a delightful irony that the comment directly above yours is from an artist that has used generative art for those commercial purposes you think are so essential, and felt liberated and inspired in their personal time to be even more creative in ways that are not commercially viable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pkdpic 3y agoAgreed, working with generative AI tools at work and independently over the past year has only made me want to make weirder more personal paintings / drawings with less interest in mass appeal or artistic professional viability. It's felt unexpectedly liberating and inspiring.
- bawolff 3y ago> Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? Because many people make art for art's sake. Besides popular art works always essentially had this yet people still made them. The difference is in scale not kind. Or to put it in another context - why would anyone work on an open source project when their work can be reused without (explicit) permission, cloned and reused in infinite small varations without any renumeration and essentially no credit (when was the last time you actually looked at the CREDITS file in an open source project? Have you ever?)
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago~99% of art is extremely derivative. Why does it matter if some artist uses ChatGPT to knock-off your style indirectly rather than directly? I mean, sure, ChatGPT is better at it than most artists. Is that the problem? The quality of knock-offs is too good now? Take any new song - and any music head can list several songs it is just like. Take any new movie - and most screenwriters could go on for hours how it's almost exactly 10 different movies. Etc. There is nothing new under the Sun.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- glimshe 3y agoYou are applying an outdated mental framework to AI, not to mention a falacious view on the relation between copyright protection and the incentive for art. Have in mind that millions of humans have historically produced enormous amounts of art with no copyright protection of any kind. The protections you are trying to defend are a relatively recent phenomenon (~200 years); arguably, some of our best art was created well before these protections existed! Additionally, the beauty of contemporary AI is that it's much more similar to the mechanism of inspiration and learning that humans employ than, let's say, the literal copy of a photo. I think it's reasonable for an artist to limit the visibility of their work and prohibit their images from being shared online and used by AI training - but this must apply across the board. If their image is public in a way that anyone could see it, and be inspired by it, then they need to accept that the AI could be equally "inspired" by it. If you want an easy, concrete example of the process of inspiration and copying taking place for humans, just look at Animes. Styles are imitated by humans left and right, with no concern of original artists losing their livelihood. Human Anime artists copy their idols when learning to draw, oftentimes producing literal imitations for years before starting to produce their own original work, which to be honest usually greatly resembles the source of inspiration (PS: I like Animes, but most of it is very similar in terms of artistic style). Do humans ever really "invent" any art? Or are the artistic innovators simply a mix of influence of existing art, the natural images of nature/life plus a spice of randomness? Because that's pretty much how AI art functions.
- nologic01 3y agoI am not trying to defend copyright. I am trying to defend the incentives and ability of humans to dedicate their lives to something that might be innate to all to some degree but only comes to fruition after long years of dedication. Older societies did not have copyright but they, manifestly, had ways to sustain creatives. People wax philosophical about paradigm changes and other vacuities yet refuse to answer a simple question: how will society reward human creativity that takes a lifetime of cultivation to flourish.
- glimshe 3y agoThey actually didn't have such a great way to sustain creatives. Poor artists is a staple of civilization. You hear about the winners, but most artisans, painters, etc had to fight hard for income. AI won't make art go away, because you still need to tell the AI what to do. But the new art won't require as much skill with a paintbrush. For instance, I'm terrible at drawing but I believe I have creative ideas. AI alllows me to be an artist too.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lolinder 3y agoThis decision isn't "a reversion to medieval times", whatever your opinion on the legal status of these images— this is an entirely procedural decision in which the judge ruled that the specific claims of copyright infringement are invalid because the plaintiff never filed for copyright: > Orrick spends the rest of his ruling explaining why he found the artists’ complaint defective, which includes various issues, but the big one being that two of the artists — McKernan and Ortiz, did not actually file copyrights on their art with the U.S. Copyright Office. In other words, the story here is mostly that the lawyers screwed up badly in pursuing a copyright lawsuit before ensuring copyright had been filed.
- tomjen3 3y agoIt may very well kill the incentives. But if new laws are needed, that is a matter for congress, not the courts.
- johngher 3y agoIt's a parlor trick, but I'm going to use it anyway: your own comment refutes your point. You put work into posting this comment: thought about the situation and crafted sentences you wanted to publish. I've absorbed them, learned from them, they'll inform my own output in the future. And respectfully, I won't remember your name or give credit. So why did you publish your comment? People can't avoid creating data. We do it passively. And you'll continue doing it, for your entire limited lifespan, even if you get neither laid nor paid for it.
- creer 3y agoPlenty of people create with minimal profit effort. Outstanding creation happens with minimal profit all the time. To profit from creation you have to publish - what alternative do you propose? So that I don't understand this idea that anything will "kill publishing". Copyright changes the economic math around publishing, sure - and most of the time currently not for the better. That will keep evolving but there is no risk of killing creation or publishing.
- mock-possum 3y agoOh I can explain it: what you’re describing is already happening, it’s been happening since far far before medieval times, it’s literally how human creativity works: novel recombinations of existing works. If anything, it will lower the barrier for creation, to allow a greater variety of art by a greater variety of artists. Adding a new tool to an artist’s kit is an incredible step forward for art.