6 ms·

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society a

by stale2002 3y ago

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
I don't really care when creative people steal. I care when faceless soulless companies monetize stolen content from Artists.
- Spivak 3y ago
  It's still copyright violation. Sue them. Being generated by AI doesn't make the final output not copywritten. The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.
sensanaty 3y ago
Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that. And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.
    - madamelic 3y ago
      > And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission. This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!") In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden). The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities. They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.
      - sensanaty 3y ago
        > They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially. I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks. And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it. There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art? No, I don't think that's the case. Instead it is widespread. It is everywhere. > depending on the scales in question The scale argument supports me, not you. This type of "infringement" is everywhere. > reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? Even this is common. The online independent artist commissions market is full of people doing commercial fan art commissions. Thinking about this even more, I am now wondering if "infringing" works might actually be a majority of the online/independent commissions market. Maybe. And yet, nobody cares.
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    > In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art? That's a disingenuous take of my comment at best, the equivalent to my scenario is a bunch of unrelated individuals with small boats going out into whatever lake is nearest to them and fishing. Even if you put all of them together and counted how many fish the hobby fishermen catch, it's still nowhere near the scale of the commercial fisheries, which is why they're treated differently both by society at larger but also legally. Same thing with these AI models, Dall-E and all the other ones have probably generated more images than all of humanity has in its entire history so far, and if not quite yet they're definitely gonna get there sooner rather than later. They can generate dozens if not hundreds of images in a split second, whereas a single artist (or even many artists collectively) can't. > And yet, nobody cares. I think we've already established that, because scales absolutely matter for most things. If you want to be an absolutist about it, sure be my guest, but I think in reality the large majority of people are fine when your average Joe Schmoe the artist makes a commission on a random Disney character, whereas they definitely would NOT be okay with a massive conglomerate like Disney stealing Joe Schmoe's original art and repurposing it without compensating Joe, because there's an inherent power disbalance between the two and the consequences of that power disparity matters. I mean, Disney does have every right to go after Joe for his commissions if they really wanted to, similarly to how Nintendo is hyper aggressive with taking down anything relating to their IPs. It's just not really worth it for most companies, they will absolutely go for another company trying to pull the same shit though, as can be seen with the NYT case.
RandomLensman 3y ago
It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own. Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    True, but still different in the same way as using machines for certain purposes is not the same as a human doing the same without a machine. Just because you can walk from A to B does not mean driving from A to B requires no driving license, for example (and the car needs to fullfil a lot regulations).
  - symlinkk 3y ago
    Is that what you’d tell the police if you were caught selling pirated copies of Blu Rays?
    - stale2002 3y ago
      That supports my point, not yours. A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications. Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.
phatfish 3y ago
Society may be "completely OK" with human artists taking inspiration from each other. It's a big old reach to assume we are "completely OK" with Microsoft and OpenAI doing the same thing with computer software as subscription service they sell.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Humans decided scale matters. Our legal systems explicitly say so. Sentencing guidelines for fraud are quite explicit. Society makes those laws. Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

I don't really care when creative people steal. I care when faceless soulless companies monetize stolen content from Artists.

Spivak 3y ago
It's still copyright violation. Sue them. Being generated by AI doesn't make the final output not copywritten. The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.

sensanaty 3y ago

Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)

gaganyaan 3y ago
It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI
- sensanaty 3y ago
  By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that. And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.
  - madamelic 3y ago
    > And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission. This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!") In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden). The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities. They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.
    - sensanaty 3y ago
      > They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially. I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks. And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it. There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.
stale2002 3y ago
> Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art? No, I don't think that's the case. Instead it is widespread. It is everywhere. > depending on the scales in question The scale argument supports me, not you. This type of "infringement" is everywhere. > reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? Even this is common. The online independent artist commissions market is full of people doing commercial fan art commissions. Thinking about this even more, I am now wondering if "infringing" works might actually be a majority of the online/independent commissions market. Maybe. And yet, nobody cares.
- sensanaty 3y ago
  > In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art? That's a disingenuous take of my comment at best, the equivalent to my scenario is a bunch of unrelated individuals with small boats going out into whatever lake is nearest to them and fishing. Even if you put all of them together and counted how many fish the hobby fishermen catch, it's still nowhere near the scale of the commercial fisheries, which is why they're treated differently both by society at larger but also legally. Same thing with these AI models, Dall-E and all the other ones have probably generated more images than all of humanity has in its entire history so far, and if not quite yet they're definitely gonna get there sooner rather than later. They can generate dozens if not hundreds of images in a split second, whereas a single artist (or even many artists collectively) can't. > And yet, nobody cares. I think we've already established that, because scales absolutely matter for most things. If you want to be an absolutist about it, sure be my guest, but I think in reality the large majority of people are fine when your average Joe Schmoe the artist makes a commission on a random Disney character, whereas they definitely would NOT be okay with a massive conglomerate like Disney stealing Joe Schmoe's original art and repurposing it without compensating Joe, because there's an inherent power disbalance between the two and the consequences of that power disparity matters. I mean, Disney does have every right to go after Joe for his commissions if they really wanted to, similarly to how Nintendo is hyper aggressive with taking down anything relating to their IPs. It's just not really worth it for most companies, they will absolutely go for another company trying to pull the same shit though, as can be seen with the NYT case.

RandomLensman 3y ago

It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.

stale2002 3y ago
Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own. Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  True, but still different in the same way as using machines for certain purposes is not the same as a human doing the same without a machine. Just because you can walk from A to B does not mean driving from A to B requires no driving license, for example (and the car needs to fullfil a lot regulations).
- symlinkk 3y ago
  Is that what you’d tell the police if you were caught selling pirated copies of Blu Rays?
  - stale2002 3y ago
    That supports my point, not yours. A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications. Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.

phatfish 3y ago

Society may be "completely OK" with human artists taking inspiration from each other. It's a big old reach to assume we are "completely OK" with Microsoft and OpenAI doing the same thing with computer software as subscription service they sell.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago

Humans decided scale matters. Our legal systems explicitly say so. Sentencing guidelines for fraud are quite explicit. Society makes those laws. Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.