4 ms·

> Midjourney is just a tool I’ve seen this framing and don’t agree with it. What does it mean for something to be “just a tool”? I think most people are tryin

> Midjourney is just a tool I’ve seen this framing and don’t agree with it. What does it mean for something to be “just a tool”? I think most people are trying to indicate that the tool itself is not of consequence, and that the issue is all with users who misuse it. But by reducing generative AI to a low resolution category like “tool”, the way this tool works - arguably the subject of consequence - gets obscured. It seems to me like these are “just tools” the way a highly sophisticated manufacturing facility capable of producing products is “just a tool”. We’re not talking about paint brushes and screw drivers here.

polishdude20 3y ago
Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who owns the copyright. You can even do this in public and not make money off of it and that would still be true.
- haswell 3y ago
  > Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. There are several implications of being a tool that can be explored, if one is interested. A printer manufacturer isnt liable if I use it to print and sell copies of Harry Potter, or some other copyrighted material. Just because I own the printer, doesnt mean I own unrestricted rights to anything that comes out of it. Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? do you have to run everything it produces through a similarity engine? what are the appropriate thresholds that have been established for similarity? The Orange Prince supreme court case was a fascinating exploration of the topic [1]. The SC case is quite an approachable read or listen and even humorous at times. [2] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869
    - haswell 3y ago
      > I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I should also clarify that I do think AI is a tool. And I do think that the questions raised about other tools are interesting to ask relative to AI. My main issue is with the “just a” framing, which usually comes with a strong implication that this tool status means AI should be treated no differently than a paintbrush. > Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? This is one of the key things that establishes a new category of concerns that is not present in other common tools. e.g. if I use a paintbrush to make counterfeit artwork, it is clear that the act of creating the specific output was deliberate (it would be hard to argue that I didn’t know what I was doing over 40 hours of detailed painting). I can’t be sure what will or won’t come of a generative image model.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I pointed out several thoughts it led me to in the post. Another is the tool framing Delinates infringement occurring during the manufacture of the tool, and the use of the tool. It also leads to other interesting points like your last one about the paintbrush. I have never heard of intent being used as a criteria of counterfeit. I don't think this is a new class however. I can use Google images and a printer to quickly produce infringing material. What conclusions can be drawn from viewing generative art models through this lens
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
The tool doesn’t do anything by itself. The operator of the tool tells it what to do. You could do the same thing with photoshop, or with paint if you have enough skill.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  Photoshop does not require that the Mona Lisa be included as a foundational base layer for its paintbrush to brush digital paint. AI does. That is the difference.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Whoever's using Photoshop to paint, however, does need to have seen existing artwork. But the point you raised demonstrates that comparing an ML model to Photoshop is an inappropriate comparison. The relevant comparison is between a person using an ML model and a person using Photoshop. A person using an ML model doesn't need to have seen existing works to ask for a generic output, but does need to have seen existing works to ask for an output similar to an existing work (outside of innocent name coincidences in the prompt like "a painting of a starry night"). If the prompt - which, I remind, comes from the person using the model - were to contain no reference to the existing work, the author, or a characteristic/style strongly associated with the work, then the output would almost never if not never be similar to an existing work. Similarity is a prerequisite for infringement. No similarity means no infringement [1]. If a person painting with Photoshop produces something similar to an existing work and publishes the work to anyone else in a way not covered by fair use, then the painter bears the liability for the copyright infringement. Analogously, if a person using an ML model gives a prompt with a reference to an existing work, author, or strongly associated characteristic/style, gets an output similar to an existing work, and publishes the output to anyone else in a way not covered by fair use, then the user of the model should bear most of the liability for the copyright infringement. The model maker should take reasonable steps to prevent users from giving such prompts (or the model from accepting such prompts), but otherwise should bear no more than a minority of the liability (unless the model regularly gives infringing outputs for prompts with no references to any works, authors, or characteristics/styles). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substantial_similarity_in_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...

polishdude20 3y ago

Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who owns the copyright. You can even do this in public and not make money off of it and that would still be true.

haswell 3y ago
> Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. There are several implications of being a tool that can be explored, if one is interested. A printer manufacturer isnt liable if I use it to print and sell copies of Harry Potter, or some other copyrighted material. Just because I own the printer, doesnt mean I own unrestricted rights to anything that comes out of it. Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? do you have to run everything it produces through a similarity engine? what are the appropriate thresholds that have been established for similarity? The Orange Prince supreme court case was a fascinating exploration of the topic [1]. The SC case is quite an approachable read or listen and even humorous at times. [2] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869
  - haswell 3y ago
    > I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I should also clarify that I do think AI is a tool. And I do think that the questions raised about other tools are interesting to ask relative to AI. My main issue is with the “just a” framing, which usually comes with a strong implication that this tool status means AI should be treated no differently than a paintbrush. > Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? This is one of the key things that establishes a new category of concerns that is not present in other common tools. e.g. if I use a paintbrush to make counterfeit artwork, it is clear that the act of creating the specific output was deliberate (it would be hard to argue that I didn’t know what I was doing over 40 hours of detailed painting). I can’t be sure what will or won’t come of a generative image model.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I pointed out several thoughts it led me to in the post. Another is the tool framing Delinates infringement occurring during the manufacture of the tool, and the use of the tool. It also leads to other interesting points like your last one about the paintbrush. I have never heard of intent being used as a criteria of counterfeit. I don't think this is a new class however. I can use Google images and a printer to quickly produce infringing material. What conclusions can be drawn from viewing generative art models through this lens

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

The tool doesn’t do anything by itself. The operator of the tool tells it what to do. You could do the same thing with photoshop, or with paint if you have enough skill.

voltaireodactyl 3y ago
Photoshop does not require that the Mona Lisa be included as a foundational base layer for its paintbrush to brush digital paint. AI does. That is the difference.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  Whoever's using Photoshop to paint, however, does need to have seen existing artwork. But the point you raised demonstrates that comparing an ML model to Photoshop is an inappropriate comparison. The relevant comparison is between a person using an ML model and a person using Photoshop. A person using an ML model doesn't need to have seen existing works to ask for a generic output, but does need to have seen existing works to ask for an output similar to an existing work (outside of innocent name coincidences in the prompt like "a painting of a starry night"). If the prompt - which, I remind, comes from the person using the model - were to contain no reference to the existing work, the author, or a characteristic/style strongly associated with the work, then the output would almost never if not never be similar to an existing work. Similarity is a prerequisite for infringement. No similarity means no infringement [1]. If a person painting with Photoshop produces something similar to an existing work and publishes the work to anyone else in a way not covered by fair use, then the painter bears the liability for the copyright infringement. Analogously, if a person using an ML model gives a prompt with a reference to an existing work, author, or strongly associated characteristic/style, gets an output similar to an existing work, and publishes the output to anyone else in a way not covered by fair use, then the user of the model should bear most of the liability for the copyright infringement. The model maker should take reasonable steps to prevent users from giving such prompts (or the model from accepting such prompts), but otherwise should bear no more than a minority of the liability (unless the model regularly gives infringing outputs for prompts with no references to any works, authors, or characteristics/styles). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substantial_similarity_in_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...