5 ms·

Lockpicking tools are widely available, and designs of locks can be found on the web if someone search hard enough. But entering another's home is illegal. It's

Lockpicking tools are widely available, and designs of locks can be found on the web if someone search hard enough. But entering another's home is illegal. It's why businesses pay for licenses even if cracked softwares exists. I hope that artists win these and make using or creating an illegal model an high-risk activity, not worth it for any commercial activity.

newZWhoDis 3y ago
[flagged]
- coldbrewed 3y ago
  A society without art is a society without joy or self awareness. A society with only AI created art is a facsimile of joy or self awareness. If we're trying to remove the parts of society that challenge and inspire us then we'll be left with cultural mush that doesn't challenge, critique, explore, or even play.
  - dkasper 3y ago
    I don’t think the current tools are doing much to the creation of “art”, it’s mostly replacing run of the mill graphic design work like logos and ads and cover art, or maybe some higher end stuff like automating workflows.
- dralley 3y ago
  You'd best hope the day AI comes for your job is a long way away. Karma is, after all, a <redacted>
- dorkwood 3y ago
  If anything, the AI image-generation movement proves just how highly society values the work of the artist, since we now have tech companies dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into training models to approximate their work.
- wds 3y ago
  As opposed to real jobs like looking at some resumes emailed to you and clicking yes or no on your MacBook
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Compared to many tech people here who maintain a website page for 6 figure salaries? few of us are saving the world. And it turns out saving the world doesn't pay well either (just look at teacher salaries. I guess educating the future doesn't benefit society). Always found it such a weird angle to demean artists while literal billon dollar corporations profit off of exploiting them. So it's not like people don't value certain kinds of art.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
I don't even care about it being illegal. As said above, US can completely ban such tech and China will keep on trucking along. I just want artists affected to be paid, and actually paid. Not "paid" the way spotify artists are. if you're making a billion off of 100 artists' work, you better be making each affected artist a millionaire in royalties.
- tavavex 3y ago
  I'm a bit confused - you draw parallels between artists whose work gets used in a training dataset and musicians who sign contracts with Spotify, but the comparison is very strained. The financial link with Spotify is obvious - the company pays some minuscule amount of money per use to directly use a product of an artist, in part for their own profit. With AI, the situation is far from being that clear-cut. For one, the majority of datasets aren't comprised of capital-A Art with specific authors and attributions - a ton of it is just random information from around the internet, or just downright junk data. A photo I posted for free could conceivably end up in that dataset. Then, when a model is trained on that dataset and that model is used to make other outputs, are those outputs actually derivative with a direct link to some origin? If I generate a landscape using an AI, to whom exactly would I even owe money? Equally to all contributors in a dataset?
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >For one, the majority of datasets aren't comprised of capital-A Art with specific authors and attributions - a ton of it is just random information from around the internet, or just downright junk data. Random means there can be copyrighted content in it. It shouldn't be "random". You can't do such things when making your own piece of media, so I don't see why it's okay when it's a bot scraping massive pieces of the internet for use in some for-profit venture. Scraping was already this gray area in the internet and practices like these argue against such techniques. >Then, when a model is trained on that dataset and that model is used to make other outputs, are those outputs actually derivative with a direct link to some origin? That's the million dollar question (literally. Or more like 10/100 million). I imagine like existing copyright it depends on how far out you derive. Arguments above that suggest the ability to regurgitate the exact or very close to piece of data would certainly lean towards "yes". In which case it implies they have that piece of data in their database, instead of just being a "reference". That feels too close hosting off of copyrighted material in my eyes, but I don't have the full picture of how and what these LLMs contain. >If I generate a landscape using an AI, to whom exactly would I even owe money? Like any media creator/producer would tell you: depends on thr license. For example, I Google "mountain" and my first result is this : https://unsplash.com/photos/aerial-photography-of-mountain-range-covered-with-snow-under-white-and-blue-sky-at-daytime-9wg5jCEPBsw https://unsplash.com/photos/aerial-photography-of-mountain-r... License says "free to use under the unsplash license", which is surprisingly lax. But there are two stipulations Photos cannot be sold without significant modification. Compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service. So we come back to the whole issue in the beginning with the first point. The 2nd point is a much more nebulous one to consider but not to be completely dismissed (maybe an AI service can be argued to generate a competitor). And that's one of the more generous results. Another result came from CNN but sourced from Shuttershock. Here's their license : https://www.shutterstock.com/license https://www.shutterstock.com/license I'm not going to read nor summarize the license, but I'm sure CNN at the bare minimum needed to ask permission and likely negotiate to use it in their news post. So yeah, an "ethical" training model will be doing this for every single image they use, if the aren't creating nor taking the pictures themselves. >Equally to all contributors in a dataset? Don't know. That would be for the courts to decide. If it's anything like streaming music and movies, you would be compensated proportionally to the amount of "usages" your work gets when generating pieces. Doesn't necessarily have to be equal, but it may surprisingly equalize out since algorithms are at the helm and not brands trying to stand out. It's certainly be it's own rabbit hole to explore though. If we ever get that far.
Gigachad 3y ago
The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, while breaking in to someones house doesn't. There will be a lot of pressure for governments to allow this to go on since it puts them at advantage over other countries.
- phantomathkg 3y ago
  > The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, The end does not justify the means.
  - 93po 3y ago
    This is a really poor argument because virtually everyone can be presented an argument where they would act counter to this way of thinking, at which points it’s only “the end does not justify the means but only when I say so”
- nhinck3 3y ago
  Stealing another country's natural resources also provides a lot of potential economic value and puts you at an advantage over another country.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    “Stealing” intellectual property from other countries has been going on for a while now and basically nothing is done about it.
    - nhinck3 3y ago
      Indeed... https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?MetaCollection=WTO&SymbolList=IP%2fD%2f*&Language=ENGLISH&SearchPage=FE_S_S001&languageUIChanged=true# https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?M...
jncfhnb 3y ago
Making in image is not like breaking into someone’s house

newZWhoDis 3y ago

[flagged]

coldbrewed 3y ago
A society without art is a society without joy or self awareness. A society with only AI created art is a facsimile of joy or self awareness. If we're trying to remove the parts of society that challenge and inspire us then we'll be left with cultural mush that doesn't challenge, critique, explore, or even play.
- dkasper 3y ago
  I don’t think the current tools are doing much to the creation of “art”, it’s mostly replacing run of the mill graphic design work like logos and ads and cover art, or maybe some higher end stuff like automating workflows.
dralley 3y ago
You'd best hope the day AI comes for your job is a long way away. Karma is, after all, a <redacted>
dorkwood 3y ago
If anything, the AI image-generation movement proves just how highly society values the work of the artist, since we now have tech companies dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into training models to approximate their work.
wds 3y ago
As opposed to real jobs like looking at some resumes emailed to you and clicking yes or no on your MacBook
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Compared to many tech people here who maintain a website page for 6 figure salaries? few of us are saving the world. And it turns out saving the world doesn't pay well either (just look at teacher salaries. I guess educating the future doesn't benefit society). Always found it such a weird angle to demean artists while literal billon dollar corporations profit off of exploiting them. So it's not like people don't value certain kinds of art.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I don't even care about it being illegal. As said above, US can completely ban such tech and China will keep on trucking along. I just want artists affected to be paid, and actually paid. Not "paid" the way spotify artists are. if you're making a billion off of 100 artists' work, you better be making each affected artist a millionaire in royalties.

tavavex 3y ago
I'm a bit confused - you draw parallels between artists whose work gets used in a training dataset and musicians who sign contracts with Spotify, but the comparison is very strained. The financial link with Spotify is obvious - the company pays some minuscule amount of money per use to directly use a product of an artist, in part for their own profit. With AI, the situation is far from being that clear-cut. For one, the majority of datasets aren't comprised of capital-A Art with specific authors and attributions - a ton of it is just random information from around the internet, or just downright junk data. A photo I posted for free could conceivably end up in that dataset. Then, when a model is trained on that dataset and that model is used to make other outputs, are those outputs actually derivative with a direct link to some origin? If I generate a landscape using an AI, to whom exactly would I even owe money? Equally to all contributors in a dataset?
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >For one, the majority of datasets aren't comprised of capital-A Art with specific authors and attributions - a ton of it is just random information from around the internet, or just downright junk data. Random means there can be copyrighted content in it. It shouldn't be "random". You can't do such things when making your own piece of media, so I don't see why it's okay when it's a bot scraping massive pieces of the internet for use in some for-profit venture. Scraping was already this gray area in the internet and practices like these argue against such techniques. >Then, when a model is trained on that dataset and that model is used to make other outputs, are those outputs actually derivative with a direct link to some origin? That's the million dollar question (literally. Or more like 10/100 million). I imagine like existing copyright it depends on how far out you derive. Arguments above that suggest the ability to regurgitate the exact or very close to piece of data would certainly lean towards "yes". In which case it implies they have that piece of data in their database, instead of just being a "reference". That feels too close hosting off of copyrighted material in my eyes, but I don't have the full picture of how and what these LLMs contain. >If I generate a landscape using an AI, to whom exactly would I even owe money? Like any media creator/producer would tell you: depends on thr license. For example, I Google "mountain" and my first result is this : https://unsplash.com/photos/aerial-photography-of-mountain-range-covered-with-snow-under-white-and-blue-sky-at-daytime-9wg5jCEPBsw https://unsplash.com/photos/aerial-photography-of-mountain-r... License says "free to use under the unsplash license", which is surprisingly lax. But there are two stipulations Photos cannot be sold without significant modification. Compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service. So we come back to the whole issue in the beginning with the first point. The 2nd point is a much more nebulous one to consider but not to be completely dismissed (maybe an AI service can be argued to generate a competitor). And that's one of the more generous results. Another result came from CNN but sourced from Shuttershock. Here's their license : https://www.shutterstock.com/license https://www.shutterstock.com/license I'm not going to read nor summarize the license, but I'm sure CNN at the bare minimum needed to ask permission and likely negotiate to use it in their news post. So yeah, an "ethical" training model will be doing this for every single image they use, if the aren't creating nor taking the pictures themselves. >Equally to all contributors in a dataset? Don't know. That would be for the courts to decide. If it's anything like streaming music and movies, you would be compensated proportionally to the amount of "usages" your work gets when generating pieces. Doesn't necessarily have to be equal, but it may surprisingly equalize out since algorithms are at the helm and not brands trying to stand out. It's certainly be it's own rabbit hole to explore though. If we ever get that far.

Gigachad 3y ago

The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, while breaking in to someones house doesn't. There will be a lot of pressure for governments to allow this to go on since it puts them at advantage over other countries.

phantomathkg 3y ago
> The difference is that AI generation tools provide a lot of potential economic value, The end does not justify the means.
- 93po 3y ago
  This is a really poor argument because virtually everyone can be presented an argument where they would act counter to this way of thinking, at which points it’s only “the end does not justify the means but only when I say so”
nhinck3 3y ago
Stealing another country's natural resources also provides a lot of potential economic value and puts you at an advantage over another country.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  “Stealing” intellectual property from other countries has been going on for a while now and basically nothing is done about it.
  - nhinck3 3y ago
    Indeed... https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?MetaCollection=WTO&SymbolList=IP%2fD%2f*&Language=ENGLISH&SearchPage=FE_S_S001&languageUIChanged=true# https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?M...

jncfhnb 3y ago

Making in image is not like breaking into someone’s house