3 ms·

You are applying an outdated mental framework to AI, not to mention a falacious view on the relation between copyright protection and the incentive for art. Hav

You are applying an outdated mental framework to AI, not to mention a falacious view on the relation between copyright protection and the incentive for art.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 ago
I 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 ago
  They 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.

nologic01 3y ago

I 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 ago
They 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.