2 ms·

> If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done. There's such thing as consent, I hope you've heard of it. No artist whose work was used to tr

> If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done. There's such thing as consent, I hope you've heard of it. No artist whose work was used to train the AIs consented to such use. Particularly if they released their work online before generative AI was a possibility. >it's really there for everyone to view and be inspired by Generative AI model is not "everyone". It's a model, a combination of data that goes into it. It's a thing. A product. A derivative work, to be specific, made by the person who trained it. >If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done. Such a romantic notion! But the same metric, a photocopy machine is an auteur that gets inspired by the work that it happens to stumble into to produce its own original art. No. The AI doesn't "view" the work, it has no agency. The human that trains the model does. And that human is the one that is ripping the artist off. The AI, as many people said, is just a tool. It doesn't suddenly turn into a person for copyright purposes. It still remains a tool for people who train the models. A tool to rip off others' intellectual property, in the case we're discussing.

ta8645 3y ago
> There's such thing as consent. When you release something into the world, you have to accept that things beyond your control will engage with it. When you walk outside, down the street, you consent to being in public, and being recorded by video cameras, whether you like it or not. Even if a new 3D camera you don't know about exists and is recording you in ways you don't understand. And in the same way, when you release something on the internet, it is there essentially forever. If you imagine that you get a "do-over" when the world changes in ways you didn't anticipate -- you're wrong. Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset. > And that human is the one that is ripping the artist off. Nobody is being ripped off. > The AI, as many people said, is just a tool People said the same thing about slaves. They aren't real people, worthy of rights. They were compared to animals, the same way you compared AI to a photocopier. Someday, this human self-obsession and self-importance against silicon based lives, will be seen in the same light, and artificial intelligences will be granted personhood. We should start protecting their rights in law today. Please don't be a bigot.
- mftrhu 3y ago
  > We should start protecting their rights in law today. Yes, and those laws will be very useful as soon as any actual artificial intelligence will crop up. Blindly applying them to DALL-E or ChatGPT because they are marketed as AI would be... short-sighted.
- romwell 3y ago
  >Nobody is being ripped off. >Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset. >Please don't be a bigot. Please don't project. >We should start protecting their rights in law today. LOL. You can't have it both ways: -AI is just a tool, work produced with AI is original work of the user -AI is an intelligence that gets "inspired" by data it's trained on Anyway. I don't want to regulate the AI. I want to regulate the humans that make the choice of which data goes into training an AI.

ta8645 3y ago

> There's such thing as consent. When you release something into the world, you have to accept that things beyond your control will engage with it. When you walk outside, down the street, you consent to being in public, and being recorded by video cameras, whether you like it or not. Even if a new 3D camera you don't know about exists and is recording you in ways you don't understand. And in the same way, when you release something on the internet, it is there essentially forever. If you imagine that you get a "do-over" when the world changes in ways you didn't anticipate -- you're wrong. Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset. > And that human is the one that is ripping the artist off. Nobody is being ripped off. > The AI, as many people said, is just a tool People said the same thing about slaves. They aren't real people, worthy of rights. They were compared to animals, the same way you compared AI to a photocopier. Someday, this human self-obsession and self-importance against silicon based lives, will be seen in the same light, and artificial intelligences will be granted personhood. We should start protecting their rights in law today. Please don't be a bigot.

mftrhu 3y ago
> We should start protecting their rights in law today. Yes, and those laws will be very useful as soon as any actual artificial intelligence will crop up. Blindly applying them to DALL-E or ChatGPT because they are marketed as AI would be... short-sighted.
romwell 3y ago
>Nobody is being ripped off. >Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset. >Please don't be a bigot. Please don't project. >We should start protecting their rights in law today. LOL. You can't have it both ways: -AI is just a tool, work produced with AI is original work of the user -AI is an intelligence that gets "inspired" by data it's trained on Anyway. I don't want to regulate the AI. I want to regulate the humans that make the choice of which data goes into training an AI.