12 ms·

And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this is not an argument against taking measures against one's art being used as training data, since

And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this is not an argument against taking measures against one's art being used as training data, since there are different implications if a human learns to paint the same way as another human vs. if an AI learns to paint the same way as a human. If the two were exactly indistinguishable in their effects no one would care about AIs, not even researchers.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
But the 'different implications' only exist in the heads of said artists? EDIT: removed a part.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean when you say different implications existing is subjective, since they clearly aren't, but regardless of who has more say in general terms, the author of a work can decide how to publish it, and no one has more say than them on that subject.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    What are you saying? Of course it's subjective, e.g. 3 million years ago there were no 'different implications' whatsoever, of any kind, because there were no humans around to have thoughts like that.
    - deadbeeves 3y ago
      I'm using "implication" as a synonym of "effect". If a human learns to imitate your style, that human can make at most a handful of drawings in a single day. The only way for the rate of output to increase is for more humans to learn to imitate it. If an AI learns to imitate your style, the AI can be trivially copied to any number of computers and the maximum output rate is unbounded. Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but this difference in consequences is objective, and someone could be entirely justified in seeking to impede it.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Ah okay, I get your meaning now, I'll edit my original comment too. Though we already have an established precedent in-between, that of Photoshop allowing artists to be, easily, 10x faster then the best painters previously. i.e. Right now 'AI' artistry could be considered a turbo-Photoshop.
        deadbeeves 3y ago
        Tool improvements only apply a constant factor to the effectiveness of learning. Creating a generative model applies an unbounded factor to the effectiveness of learning because, as I said, the only limit is how much computing resources are available to humanity. If a single person was able to copy themselves at practically no cost and the copy retained all the knowledge of the original then the two situations would be equivalent, but that's impossible. Having n people with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by n. Having n instances of an AI with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by 1.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Right, but the 'unbounded factor' is irrelevant because the output will quickly trend into random noise. And only the most interesting top few million art pieces will actually attract the attention of any concrete individual. For a current example, there's already billions of man-hours worth of AI spam writing, indexed by Google, that is likely not actually read by even a single person on Earth.
        deadbeeves 3y ago
        Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that a machine being able to copy the artistic style of a human makes it so that anyone can produce output in the style of that human by just feeding the machine electricity. That inherently devalues the style the artist has painstakingly developed. If someone wants a piece of art in that artist's style they don't have to go to that artist, they just need to request the machine for what they want. Is the machine's output of low quality? Maybe. Will there be people for whom that low quality still makes them want to seek out the human? No doubt. It doesn't change the fact that the style is still devalued, nor that there exist artists who would want to prevent that.
withinboredom 3y ago
And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. Even if you argue that an AI is "human enough" the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies.
- deeviant 3y ago
  > the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies. Why? That certainly isn't a right spelled out in either patents or copyrights, both of which are supposed to support the development of arts and technology, not hinder it. If I discover a new mathematical formula, musical scale, or whatnot, should I be able to prevent others from learning about it?
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    It’s called a license and you can make it almost anything. It doesn’t even need to be spelled out, it can be verbal: “no, I won’t let you have it” It’s yours. That’s literally what copyright is there to enforce.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      License doesn't matter if fair use applies. > Fair use allows reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works – without requiring permission from the copyright owner – under certain conditions. In many cases, you can use copyrighted materials for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research. Reminder that you can't own ideas, no matter what the law says. NOTE: This comment is copyrighted and provided to you under license only. By reading this comment, you agree to give me 5 billion dollars.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        I'd love to see you try to enforce that license because it would only prove my point. You'd have to sue me; then I would point to the terms of service of this platform and point out that by using it, you have no license here. Fair use though, only applies as a legal defense because someone asserts you stole their work. Then ONLY the court decides whether or not you used it under fair use. You don't get to make that decision; you just get to decide whether to try and use it as a defense. Even if you actually did unfairly use copyrighted works, you would be stupid not to use that as a defense. Because maybe somebody on the jury agrees with you...

MichaelZuo 3y ago

But the 'different implications' only exist in the heads of said artists? EDIT: removed a part.

deadbeeves 3y ago
I'm not sure what you mean when you say different implications existing is subjective, since they clearly aren't, but regardless of who has more say in general terms, the author of a work can decide how to publish it, and no one has more say than them on that subject.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  What are you saying? Of course it's subjective, e.g. 3 million years ago there were no 'different implications' whatsoever, of any kind, because there were no humans around to have thoughts like that.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    I'm using "implication" as a synonym of "effect". If a human learns to imitate your style, that human can make at most a handful of drawings in a single day. The only way for the rate of output to increase is for more humans to learn to imitate it. If an AI learns to imitate your style, the AI can be trivially copied to any number of computers and the maximum output rate is unbounded. Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but this difference in consequences is objective, and someone could be entirely justified in seeking to impede it.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Ah okay, I get your meaning now, I'll edit my original comment too. Though we already have an established precedent in-between, that of Photoshop allowing artists to be, easily, 10x faster then the best painters previously. i.e. Right now 'AI' artistry could be considered a turbo-Photoshop.
      - deadbeeves 3y ago
        Tool improvements only apply a constant factor to the effectiveness of learning. Creating a generative model applies an unbounded factor to the effectiveness of learning because, as I said, the only limit is how much computing resources are available to humanity. If a single person was able to copy themselves at practically no cost and the copy retained all the knowledge of the original then the two situations would be equivalent, but that's impossible. Having n people with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by n. Having n instances of an AI with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by 1.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Right, but the 'unbounded factor' is irrelevant because the output will quickly trend into random noise. And only the most interesting top few million art pieces will actually attract the attention of any concrete individual. For a current example, there's already billions of man-hours worth of AI spam writing, indexed by Google, that is likely not actually read by even a single person on Earth.
        deadbeeves 3y ago
        Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that a machine being able to copy the artistic style of a human makes it so that anyone can produce output in the style of that human by just feeding the machine electricity. That inherently devalues the style the artist has painstakingly developed. If someone wants a piece of art in that artist's style they don't have to go to that artist, they just need to request the machine for what they want. Is the machine's output of low quality? Maybe. Will there be people for whom that low quality still makes them want to seek out the human? No doubt. It doesn't change the fact that the style is still devalued, nor that there exist artists who would want to prevent that.

withinboredom 3y ago

And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. Even if you argue that an AI is "human enough" the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies.

deeviant 3y ago
> the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies. Why? That certainly isn't a right spelled out in either patents or copyrights, both of which are supposed to support the development of arts and technology, not hinder it. If I discover a new mathematical formula, musical scale, or whatnot, should I be able to prevent others from learning about it?
- withinboredom 3y ago
  It’s called a license and you can make it almost anything. It doesn’t even need to be spelled out, it can be verbal: “no, I won’t let you have it” It’s yours. That’s literally what copyright is there to enforce.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    License doesn't matter if fair use applies. > Fair use allows reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works – without requiring permission from the copyright owner – under certain conditions. In many cases, you can use copyrighted materials for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research. Reminder that you can't own ideas, no matter what the law says. NOTE: This comment is copyrighted and provided to you under license only. By reading this comment, you agree to give me 5 billion dollars.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      I'd love to see you try to enforce that license because it would only prove my point. You'd have to sue me; then I would point to the terms of service of this platform and point out that by using it, you have no license here. Fair use though, only applies as a legal defense because someone asserts you stole their work. Then ONLY the court decides whether or not you used it under fair use. You don't get to make that decision; you just get to decide whether to try and use it as a defense. Even if you actually did unfairly use copyrighted works, you would be stupid not to use that as a defense. Because maybe somebody on the jury agrees with you...