4 ms·

Generative models are just a tool. Artists are mad because this tool empowers other people, who they view as less talented, to make art too. The camera and 1-h

by c0pium 3y ago

Generative models are just a tool. Artists are mad because this tool empowers other people, who they view as less talented, to make art too. The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings, it just enabled more people to have control over what was on their walls.

eek2121 3y ago
No, I have to disagree here. I'm not an artist, but I respect the creations of others. OpenAI does not. They could have trained on free data, but it did not want to because it would cost more (finding humans to find/sanction said data, etc).
romwell 3y ago
>Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. If it's "just a tool" in and of itself, then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's art. >The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings Because the copyright laws were extended to include photographic reproduction of art as something you need to obtain a permission (and a license) for. The same needs to happen for generative AI. A photocopy machine is just a tool too. So is the printing press.
- candiodari 3y ago
  > Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. So does a human brain. Which brings us to the other side of the reasoning is that tools like Midjourney and OpenAI enable idiots (when it comes to drawing/animating ... that includes me) to create engaging artwork. Recently generating artwork like that went from almost impossible to "great, but easily recognizeable as AI artwork". Frankly, I expect the discussion will end when it stops being recognizeable. I hate Andreesen Horowitz' reasoning, but they're right about one thing: once we have virtual artists that are not easy to distinguish from "real" ones, the discussion will end. It does not really matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is as it will not make a difference in the end.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > So does a human brain. A major difference between a human training himself by looking at art, and a computer doing it, is that the human ends up working for himself, the computer is owned by some billionaire. One enhances the creative potential of humanity as a whole, the other consolidates it in the hands of the already-powerful. Another major difference is that a human can't use that knowledge to mass-produce that art at a scale that will put other artists in the poorhouse. The computer can. Copyright exists to benefit humanity as a whole... And frankly, I see no reason for why a neural network's output should be protected by copyright. Only humans can produce copyrightable works, and a prompt is not a sufficient creative input.
    - WereAllMadHere 3y ago
      Visual artists cannot create without tools. Whether that tool is a brush and paint, a camera, or a neural network. Whether an artist pays for a subscription to openAI or buys paint pots on Amazon.com money is going to a billionaire, it is not a difference between ai and other art. You are also ignoring the existence of non-commercial open source AI, they exist. Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable.
      - vkou 3y ago
        There's a substantive difference in whether the artist is using the tool, or the tool works on its own. A paintbrush doesn't produce a painting by itself, a human needs to apply an incredibly specialized creative skillset, in conjunction with the paintbrush to do so. An LLM takes a prompt and produces a painting. No sane person would say that I 'drew' the painting in question, even if I provided the prompt. > Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable. We copyright things that require creative input. A list of facts or definitions did not require creative input, and is therefore not copyrightable. Using an LLM does not meet the bar for creative input.
        flir 3y ago
- tekknik 3y ago
  If you graduated from school and only used work that was public domain, would you have all the knowledge you currently have? Have you learned anything from anybody since graduating? Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine?
  - romwell 3y ago
    >Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine? Yes. The machine doesn't get to make its own choices. Once it does, we'll have a different conversations. Presently, humans decide what goes into the training set, and what comes out. Those humans are the ones that we need to regulate. Hot take: The LLM is learning as much as a ZIP file is learning.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    It is NOT okay for machine owner to profit from learning, unless the machine owner compensates the owners of the training data. That is where the line should be drawn.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by c0pium 3y ago

eek2121 3y ago

No, I have to disagree here. I'm not an artist, but I respect the creations of others. OpenAI does not. They could have trained on free data, but it did not want to because it would cost more (finding humans to find/sanction said data, etc).

romwell 3y ago

>Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. If it's "just a tool" in and of itself, then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's art. >The camera and 1-hour film developing didn’t destroy oil paintings Because the copyright laws were extended to include photographic reproduction of art as something you need to obtain a permission (and a license) for. The same needs to happen for generative AI. A photocopy machine is just a tool too. So is the printing press.

candiodari 3y ago
> Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work. So does a human brain. Which brings us to the other side of the reasoning is that tools like Midjourney and OpenAI enable idiots (when it comes to drawing/animating ... that includes me) to create engaging artwork. Recently generating artwork like that went from almost impossible to "great, but easily recognizeable as AI artwork". Frankly, I expect the discussion will end when it stops being recognizeable. I hate Andreesen Horowitz' reasoning, but they're right about one thing: once we have virtual artists that are not easy to distinguish from "real" ones, the discussion will end. It does not really matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is as it will not make a difference in the end.
- vkou 3y ago
  > So does a human brain. A major difference between a human training himself by looking at art, and a computer doing it, is that the human ends up working for himself, the computer is owned by some billionaire. One enhances the creative potential of humanity as a whole, the other consolidates it in the hands of the already-powerful. Another major difference is that a human can't use that knowledge to mass-produce that art at a scale that will put other artists in the poorhouse. The computer can. Copyright exists to benefit humanity as a whole... And frankly, I see no reason for why a neural network's output should be protected by copyright. Only humans can produce copyrightable works, and a prompt is not a sufficient creative input.
  - WereAllMadHere 3y ago
    Visual artists cannot create without tools. Whether that tool is a brush and paint, a camera, or a neural network. Whether an artist pays for a subscription to openAI or buys paint pots on Amazon.com money is going to a billionaire, it is not a difference between ai and other art. You are also ignoring the existence of non-commercial open source AI, they exist. Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable.
    - vkou 3y ago
      There's a substantive difference in whether the artist is using the tool, or the tool works on its own. A paintbrush doesn't produce a painting by itself, a human needs to apply an incredibly specialized creative skillset, in conjunction with the paintbrush to do so. An LLM takes a prompt and produces a painting. No sane person would say that I 'drew' the painting in question, even if I provided the prompt. > Regarding copyright, we copyright output not input. Otherwise most photography would be uncopyrightable. We copyright things that require creative input. A list of facts or definitions did not require creative input, and is therefore not copyrightable. Using an LLM does not meet the bar for creative input.
      - flir 3y ago
tekknik 3y ago
If you graduated from school and only used work that was public domain, would you have all the knowledge you currently have? Have you learned anything from anybody since graduating? Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine?
- romwell 3y ago
  >Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine? Yes. The machine doesn't get to make its own choices. Once it does, we'll have a different conversations. Presently, humans decide what goes into the training set, and what comes out. Those humans are the ones that we need to regulate. Hot take: The LLM is learning as much as a ZIP file is learning.
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  It is NOT okay for machine owner to profit from learning, unless the machine owner compensates the owners of the training data. That is where the line should be drawn.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]