5 ms·

... 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

... 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 ago
You can pay rent by other means than art. Adapt or be homeless.
- renegat0x0 3y ago
  If any work is used for AI training, then the author should be paid. I hope that artists will be protected. Abide the law, or meet consequences?
  - emanuele232 3y ago
    i agree in part with the parent comment, art can be done for hobby or for work, if the work part is being replaced by generators then art will be confined as an hobby and maybe that will be better for everyone. Stop at all the laundry-multimillionary "art" racket. btw, regarding copyright use, i don't see how AIs are not in the "fair use" category, they take human-generated content and apply a transformation to it, generating new images. The only problem is that generating images is a million-times quicker and cheaper
  - Wissenschafter 3y ago
    If any work is used for human training, then the author should be paid. See how ridiculous that sounds?
    - renegat0x0 3y ago
      If a 'work' was created for view only, and a "big tech company" sends employees to spy and capture anything 'work' related during human training, with mischievous intent to copy everything without permission, without compensation, so that author cannot use it anymore then NO, I do not find that ridiculous. I find that evil.
- __loam 3y ago
  What a shit opinion. As most of us are professional programmers here, surely we can understand the benefits of professionalization? We as a society lose something if the economy can't support the mastery of these skills, including the ability to create the training data these models depend on.
  - renegat0x0 3y ago
    What a great way to start conversation. "What a shit opinion". You must have many friends.
csallen 3y ago
- The vast majority of art created is done by people who don't have a full-time job creating art. So why does art have to pay the rent? - Lots of art still does pay the rent in ways that aren't threatened by AI. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that AI will be the death of commercial art, but moreso a new tool used by many commercial artists. - Business models change. There have been countless industries and skillsets that have been made obsolete by various technological innovations that have automated what previously required skilled workers to do. Society adapts. Why should we make this particular technological progress illegal, just so we can freeze a particular business model in time? We don't do that with other professions. Why can't artists adapt and find new ways to make money? - Similarly, why do methods of getting famous for art, or being motivated for art, need to stay consistent and unchanged over time? Why can't artists figure out new ways to get famous or get motivated? Why should we freeze or outlaw technology just so artists don't have to change from what's always worked? - Copyright violation is not theft. Theft is when you take a rivalrous good from someone else who owns it. If you grow an apple, and I take it, that is theft, and it's wrong because you no longer have that apple. Copyright violation is not theft. If you draw a picture, and I copy it, that picture has not been stolen, and you have not been deprived of it. This is a crime very different than theft, and the laws behind it are very different than the laws behind theft, as is the reasoning behind those laws. So it would behoove you to stop equating it to theft.

Wissenschafter 3y ago

You can pay rent by other means than art. Adapt or be homeless.

renegat0x0 3y ago
If any work is used for AI training, then the author should be paid. I hope that artists will be protected. Abide the law, or meet consequences?
- emanuele232 3y ago
  i agree in part with the parent comment, art can be done for hobby or for work, if the work part is being replaced by generators then art will be confined as an hobby and maybe that will be better for everyone. Stop at all the laundry-multimillionary "art" racket. btw, regarding copyright use, i don't see how AIs are not in the "fair use" category, they take human-generated content and apply a transformation to it, generating new images. The only problem is that generating images is a million-times quicker and cheaper
- Wissenschafter 3y ago
  If any work is used for human training, then the author should be paid. See how ridiculous that sounds?
  - renegat0x0 3y ago
    If a 'work' was created for view only, and a "big tech company" sends employees to spy and capture anything 'work' related during human training, with mischievous intent to copy everything without permission, without compensation, so that author cannot use it anymore then NO, I do not find that ridiculous. I find that evil.
__loam 3y ago
What a shit opinion. As most of us are professional programmers here, surely we can understand the benefits of professionalization? We as a society lose something if the economy can't support the mastery of these skills, including the ability to create the training data these models depend on.
- renegat0x0 3y ago
  What a great way to start conversation. "What a shit opinion". You must have many friends.

csallen 3y ago

- The vast majority of art created is done by people who don't have a full-time job creating art. So why does art have to pay the rent? - Lots of art still does pay the rent in ways that aren't threatened by AI. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that AI will be the death of commercial art, but moreso a new tool used by many commercial artists. - Business models change. There have been countless industries and skillsets that have been made obsolete by various technological innovations that have automated what previously required skilled workers to do. Society adapts. Why should we make this particular technological progress illegal, just so we can freeze a particular business model in time? We don't do that with other professions. Why can't artists adapt and find new ways to make money? - Similarly, why do methods of getting famous for art, or being motivated for art, need to stay consistent and unchanged over time? Why can't artists figure out new ways to get famous or get motivated? Why should we freeze or outlaw technology just so artists don't have to change from what's always worked? - Copyright violation is not theft. Theft is when you take a rivalrous good from someone else who owns it. If you grow an apple, and I take it, that is theft, and it's wrong because you no longer have that apple. Copyright violation is not theft. If you draw a picture, and I copy it, that picture has not been stolen, and you have not been deprived of it. This is a crime very different than theft, and the laws behind it are very different than the laws behind theft, as is the reasoning behind those laws. So it would behoove you to stop equating it to theft.