4 ms·

The level of claims accompanied by enthusiastic reception from a technically illiterate audience make it sound, smell, and sound like snake oil without much dee

by AJ007 3y ago

The level of claims accompanied by enthusiastic reception from a technically illiterate audience make it sound, smell, and sound like snake oil without much deep investigation. There is another alternative to the law. Provide your art for private viewing only, and ensure your in person audience does not bring recording devices with them. That may sound absurd, but it's a common practice during activities like having sex.

gfodor 3y ago
True I can imagine that kind of thing becoming popular.
Art9681 3y ago
This would just create a new market for art paparazzis who would find any and all means to inflitrate such private viewings with futuristic miniature cameras and other sensors and selling it for a premium. Less than 24 hours later the files end up on hundreds or thousands of centralized and decentralized servers. I'm not defending it. Just acknowledging the reality. The next TMZ for private art gatherings is percolating in someone's garage at the moment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jurassic 3y ago
  I find this difficult to believe; no matter how small your camera is, photography is about light. Art reproduction photography is surprisingly hard to do if you care about the quality of the end result. Unless you can surreptitiously smuggle in a studio lighting setup, tripod, and color checker card… sure you can take an image in secret, but not one that is a good representation of the real thing.
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    It’s about number of photons and aperture. In principle this could be very hard to detect, especially once people get good at multiple distributed apertures that are coherent with one another.
  - nihilius 3y ago
    You could just build a stabilizer system and stand really still for 1 second. Then expose for a longer time. Photography is Apertrue, ISO, and exposure time. This will gather enough light to do a proper exposure even in a dimm lit venue. Anything darker and every viewer will have a hard time seeing the private art. ANother thing would be to crank up the ISO and denoise it later. Its much more lossy but with this you could get lower exposure times.
    - jurassic 3y ago
      I hear what you’re saying, but I think maybe we just have different standards for what counts as acceptable quality.
- offices 3y ago
  For comparison, The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls did this and successfully remained hidden for half a century, only failing because it was published somewhere else.
Gormo 3y ago
That doesn't sound like a viable business model. There seems to be a non-trivial bootstrap problem involved -- how do you become well-known enough to attract audiences to private venues in sufficient volume to make a living? -- and would in no way diminish demand for AI-generated artwork which would still continue to draw attention away from you.
wraptile 3y ago
The thing is people want the benefits of having their stuff public but not bear the costs. Scraping has been mostly a solved problem especially when it comes to broad crawling. Put it under a login, there, no more AI "stealing" your work.
- 946789987649 3y ago
  Is that login statement strictly true? Unless the login is paid, there's no reason we can't get to (if not already there) the point where the AI scraper can just create a login first.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    But then you can rate-limit to a point where scraping everything will take a considerable amount of time. Of course the workaround would be to have multiple accounts, but that in turn can be made unscalable with a "prove you're human" box.
    - csydas 3y ago
      you are not incorrect that this would help mitigate, but it still misses a few key points I think regarding why artists are upset about AI generation - This is still vulnerable to stuff like mturk or even just normal users who did get past the anti-bot things pulling and re-uploading the content elsewhere that is easier for the AI companies to use - The artists' main contention is that the AI companies shouldn't be allowed to just use whatever they find without confirm they have a license to use the content in this way - If someone's content _does_ get into an AI model and it's determined somehow (I think there is a case with a news paper and chatGPT over this very issue?), the legal system doesn't really have a good framework for this situation right now -- is it copyright infringement? (arguably not? it's not clear) is it plagiarism? (arguably yes, but plagiarism in US court system is very hard to proof/get action on) is it license violation? (for those who use licenses for their art, probably yes, but it's the same issue as plagiarism -- how to prove it effectively?) Really what this comes down to is that the AI companies use the premise that they have a right to use someone else's works without consent for the AI training. While your suggestions are technically correct, it puts the impetus on the artists that they must do something different because the AI companies are allowed to train their models as they currently do without recourse for the original artist. Maybe that will be ruled true in the future I don't know, but I can absolutely get why artists are upset about this premise shaping the discussion on AI training, as such a premise negates their rights as an artist and many artists have 0 path for recourse. I'm pretty sure that OpenAI wouldn't think about scraping a Disney movie from a video upload site just because it's open access since Disney likely can fight in a more meaningful way. I would agree with artists who are complaining that they shouldn't need to wait for a big corporation to decide that this behavior is undesirable before real action is taken, but it seems that is going to be what is needed. It might be reality, but it's a very sad reality that people want changed.

by AJ007 3y ago

gfodor 3y ago

True I can imagine that kind of thing becoming popular.

Art9681 3y ago

This would just create a new market for art paparazzis who would find any and all means to inflitrate such private viewings with futuristic miniature cameras and other sensors and selling it for a premium. Less than 24 hours later the files end up on hundreds or thousands of centralized and decentralized servers. I'm not defending it. Just acknowledging the reality. The next TMZ for private art gatherings is percolating in someone's garage at the moment.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jurassic 3y ago
I find this difficult to believe; no matter how small your camera is, photography is about light. Art reproduction photography is surprisingly hard to do if you care about the quality of the end result. Unless you can surreptitiously smuggle in a studio lighting setup, tripod, and color checker card… sure you can take an image in secret, but not one that is a good representation of the real thing.
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  It’s about number of photons and aperture. In principle this could be very hard to detect, especially once people get good at multiple distributed apertures that are coherent with one another.
- nihilius 3y ago
  You could just build a stabilizer system and stand really still for 1 second. Then expose for a longer time. Photography is Apertrue, ISO, and exposure time. This will gather enough light to do a proper exposure even in a dimm lit venue. Anything darker and every viewer will have a hard time seeing the private art. ANother thing would be to crank up the ISO and denoise it later. Its much more lossy but with this you could get lower exposure times.
  - jurassic 3y ago
    I hear what you’re saying, but I think maybe we just have different standards for what counts as acceptable quality.
offices 3y ago
For comparison, The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls did this and successfully remained hidden for half a century, only failing because it was published somewhere else.

Gormo 3y ago

That doesn't sound like a viable business model. There seems to be a non-trivial bootstrap problem involved -- how do you become well-known enough to attract audiences to private venues in sufficient volume to make a living? -- and would in no way diminish demand for AI-generated artwork which would still continue to draw attention away from you.

wraptile 3y ago

The thing is people want the benefits of having their stuff public but not bear the costs. Scraping has been mostly a solved problem especially when it comes to broad crawling. Put it under a login, there, no more AI "stealing" your work.

946789987649 3y ago
Is that login statement strictly true? Unless the login is paid, there's no reason we can't get to (if not already there) the point where the AI scraper can just create a login first.
- Tade0 3y ago
  But then you can rate-limit to a point where scraping everything will take a considerable amount of time. Of course the workaround would be to have multiple accounts, but that in turn can be made unscalable with a "prove you're human" box.
  - csydas 3y ago
    you are not incorrect that this would help mitigate, but it still misses a few key points I think regarding why artists are upset about AI generation - This is still vulnerable to stuff like mturk or even just normal users who did get past the anti-bot things pulling and re-uploading the content elsewhere that is easier for the AI companies to use - The artists' main contention is that the AI companies shouldn't be allowed to just use whatever they find without confirm they have a license to use the content in this way - If someone's content _does_ get into an AI model and it's determined somehow (I think there is a case with a news paper and chatGPT over this very issue?), the legal system doesn't really have a good framework for this situation right now -- is it copyright infringement? (arguably not? it's not clear) is it plagiarism? (arguably yes, but plagiarism in US court system is very hard to proof/get action on) is it license violation? (for those who use licenses for their art, probably yes, but it's the same issue as plagiarism -- how to prove it effectively?) Really what this comes down to is that the AI companies use the premise that they have a right to use someone else's works without consent for the AI training. While your suggestions are technically correct, it puts the impetus on the artists that they must do something different because the AI companies are allowed to train their models as they currently do without recourse for the original artist. Maybe that will be ruled true in the future I don't know, but I can absolutely get why artists are upset about this premise shaping the discussion on AI training, as such a premise negates their rights as an artist and many artists have 0 path for recourse. I'm pretty sure that OpenAI wouldn't think about scraping a Disney movie from a video upload site just because it's open access since Disney likely can fight in a more meaningful way. I would agree with artists who are complaining that they shouldn't need to wait for a big corporation to decide that this behavior is undesirable before real action is taken, but it seems that is going to be what is needed. It might be reality, but it's a very sad reality that people want changed.