12 ms·

None of the examples you’ve given are even remotely the same thing. > The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations th

None of the examples you’ve given are even remotely the same thing. > The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations that they had. This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. > Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will every other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much every job. The camera enabled something that was not possible before, and I wasn’t built by taking the work of sketch artists and painters. It was an entirely new form of art and media. The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. I find the implications deeply depressing.

ttoinou 3y ago
Da Vinci also made money from the painting, and the Louvres continues to do so right now. They didn't credit his influence and inspiration. This is not sad. The camera did enable painters to pretend they were, for hours, at a scene they painted, but instead they painted photographs from others. Artists are not angels, they do the same "bad" things than OpenAI
- jonplackett 3y ago
  Da Vinci was just a man though. He was able to produce one or perhaps two paintings at a time. He was not able to create a monopoly on the creation of paintings across the entire world and undercut the price and ability of all other painters. It’s not a sensible comparisons.
  - throwuwu 3y ago
    In what way does anyone have a monopoly on generated images and video? Last I checked there were several major players and more startups than you can shake a stick at.
    - jakub_g 3y ago
      Not monopoly but oligopoly. Only a small # of entities have enough resources to train the models on tens of 1000s of GPUs.
      - throwuwu 3y ago
        It won’t last. There’s a massive incentive to build more GPUs and develop specialized chips and everyone who can is scrambling to meet that demand. The technology is not some trade secret that no one can copy which is why there are so many people and companies diving into this market now. Hardware is a bit slow to ramp up production of but it will get there eventually because there’s money to be made.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Does that matter when the models they generate are given away for free? You can make your argument validly against DALL•E or Midjourney families, but we've also got the Stable Diffusion family of models that anyone can just grab a copy of.
    - jonplackett 3y ago
      I’m talking about generative ai VS human artists. But in this case it seems like OpenAI specifically has a massive leap over everyone else with this video generation. So whether they have a monopoly over that remains to be seen. What does not remain to be seen though is that generative ai is going to put a lot of artists out of work. You can argue about the good and bad of that but it’s defo happening.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    So at what point is a painter too effective to be legal? Should we limit the amount of paintings that a single painter is allowed to produce per month?
    - varelse 3y ago
      [dead]
    - jonplackett 3y ago
      Not sure if you’re just being facetious but my point is that individual painters do not need to have limits on them because they have a natural human limit that stops them causing societal problems. What if da Vinci had been superhuman and could take on 1,000,000 commissions per day and had also taught himself every style of art and would do each commission for 0.001x the cost of anyone else. Yes society as a whole benefit from a fantastic amount of super high quality art. But the other artists are not gonna be so happy with the situation are they?
      - nostrebored 3y ago
        Sincerely — who cares? There isn’t a human right to make money from art. People make decisions based on what society deems valuable. That changes over time and has for the entirety of human history. Maybe there’s a demand for more customized art. Maybe spite patronage will make a comeback. Anyone telling you they know how it will shake out is a fraud. But the incentives we’ve set up have a natural push and pull to get people to do what society values.
        cycomanic 3y ago
        It's funny all you guys arguing there isn't a right/law to make money from art. What do you think copyright is? The issue is that all these models were trained in blatant violation of copyright. And before you say they just take inspiration, that's the same argument as saying when I copy a movie to my harddrive it's the same remembering. It's not and a computer is not a human.
- lewhoo 3y ago
  Da Vinci inspired whole new generations of artists, thinkers and scientists. The net benefit of his existence distributed itself among many others - as it does with any great artist, thinker or scientist. It certainly looks like generative AI has at least in some cases the opposite effect.
quonn 3y ago
> into a commercial product which they sell access to Within a few mon the or years there will be open source implementations anyway, running locally or in a data center. Most of the technology is published.
- sheepdestroyer 3y ago
  Contrary to text and the big piles of "liberated" data hanging around for anyone looking hard enough to grab, the training data for video seems to be harder to access for opensource / research / individuals. Google has Youtube, OpenAI can pay whatever fee any proprietary data bank requires. There's a moat right there that I can't see how to overcome.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    Weird to say I guess, but meta might release an open source model too. And they do have plenty of data to feed their models. Arguably more data than openAI should have as they don't really own any social media. Thing is, anyway, as soon as one model is open there will be copies of it, fine-tune implementations. People don't care that much about ownership of data I would say if they actually have access to the models that are produced by gathering this data. Ultimately, to me, an open source model for this tool makes a lot of sense. They use publicly available data and the models become publicly available. I for one am quite excited for this tooling to become better and better so I can make the adaptation of a book I love into a movie I imagine it can be. At least I can have a lot of fun trying.
ETH_start 3y ago
Those are not fundamentally different. A group of people coming together to create a company that trains a AI model for profit and an artist studying thousands of pieces to develop a style of their own, and then selling paintings based on that style, are both totally dependent on the body of knowledge that civilization left for them.
csallen 3y ago
> This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. How else do you get influence and inspiration without feeding other people's work into your own brain? Do you know a single artist, writer, or musician who hasn't seen other artists' paintings, read other writers' books, or listened to other musician's music? Ingesting content is the core of how influence, inspiration, and learning work. > The camera enabled something that was not possible before… The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. It's never been possible to generate thoughts, writing, and images so quickly and at such a high level. It's made creative pursuits accessible to billions who previously didn't have the skill or time to do them well, or the money to hire others. As a random example, I have friends using ChatGPT to compose creative and personalized poems and notes about each other. Not something they were doing before. > The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. The camera lessened the need of people to go to plays and pay for tickets to see things in person. Just like records, CDs, and mp3s lessened the need to go to concerts and shows. Technology is always creating and destroying ways to pay people. The ways that people get paid are not suppose to be fixed and unchanging in time.
- imiric 3y ago
  I agree with everything you said. I would just add two points: - The rate of change that AI forces upon us has never before been experienced. - The scale of these changes is nothing like we've ever seen before. The adoptions of the camera, radio, automobile, TV, etc., didn't happen practically overnight. Society had a good decade+ to prepare for them. Similarly, AI doesn't just change one industry. It fundamentally changes _all_ industries, and brings up some fundamental questions about the meaning of intelligence and our place in the universe. My fear is that we're not prepared for either of these things. We're not even certain how exactly this will affect us, or where this is actually all taking us, but somehow a very small group of people is inevitably forcing this on all of us. Because of this I think that being conservative, and maybe putting some strict regulation on these advancements, might not be such a bad idea.
  - 3y ago
ben_w 3y ago
> This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. Sure. Who do we send the compensation to for Leonardo da Vinci? Or Shakespeare, for a text-based example? Do you want them to compensate me for the stuff I uploaded to Wikipedia and licensed as public domain, or what I've uploaded to GitHub with an MIT license? A model trained only on licensed data is still an existential threat to the incomes of people whose works were never included in the model, precisely because they're only useful to the extent that they generalise beyond their own examples. > The camera enabled something that was not possible before, and I wasn’t built by taking the work of sketch artists and painters. It was an entirely new form of art and media. A new form of art that was (a) initially decried as "not art", and (b) which almost completely ended the economic value of portraiture.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > Who do we send the compensation to for Leonardo da Vinci? Or Shakespeare, for a text-based example? Those authors aren't alive and their works are in the public domain. Bringing them up is irrelevant and a diversion from the actual problem, which is that creators alive today whose work is under copyright today and who need to make a living from their art are having it taken with zero compensation and had it fed into AI, stealing their effort. > A model trained only on licensed data is still an existential threat to the incomes of people whose works were never included in the model, precisely because they're only useful to the extent that they generalise beyond their own examples. Again, a diversion. We can debate how much AI trained on properly-licensed AI should be controlled, but it's pretty clear that the bare minimum is for all AI training data to require explicit permission from the creator of that data.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw10920 3y ago

ttoinou 3y ago

Da Vinci also made money from the painting, and the Louvres continues to do so right now. They didn't credit his influence and inspiration. This is not sad. The camera did enable painters to pretend they were, for hours, at a scene they painted, but instead they painted photographs from others. Artists are not angels, they do the same "bad" things than OpenAI

jonplackett 3y ago
Da Vinci was just a man though. He was able to produce one or perhaps two paintings at a time. He was not able to create a monopoly on the creation of paintings across the entire world and undercut the price and ability of all other painters. It’s not a sensible comparisons.
- throwuwu 3y ago
  In what way does anyone have a monopoly on generated images and video? Last I checked there were several major players and more startups than you can shake a stick at.
  - jakub_g 3y ago
    Not monopoly but oligopoly. Only a small # of entities have enough resources to train the models on tens of 1000s of GPUs.
    - throwuwu 3y ago
      It won’t last. There’s a massive incentive to build more GPUs and develop specialized chips and everyone who can is scrambling to meet that demand. The technology is not some trade secret that no one can copy which is why there are so many people and companies diving into this market now. Hardware is a bit slow to ramp up production of but it will get there eventually because there’s money to be made.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Does that matter when the models they generate are given away for free? You can make your argument validly against DALL•E or Midjourney families, but we've also got the Stable Diffusion family of models that anyone can just grab a copy of.
  - jonplackett 3y ago
    I’m talking about generative ai VS human artists. But in this case it seems like OpenAI specifically has a massive leap over everyone else with this video generation. So whether they have a monopoly over that remains to be seen. What does not remain to be seen though is that generative ai is going to put a lot of artists out of work. You can argue about the good and bad of that but it’s defo happening.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  So at what point is a painter too effective to be legal? Should we limit the amount of paintings that a single painter is allowed to produce per month?
  - varelse 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jonplackett 3y ago
    Not sure if you’re just being facetious but my point is that individual painters do not need to have limits on them because they have a natural human limit that stops them causing societal problems. What if da Vinci had been superhuman and could take on 1,000,000 commissions per day and had also taught himself every style of art and would do each commission for 0.001x the cost of anyone else. Yes society as a whole benefit from a fantastic amount of super high quality art. But the other artists are not gonna be so happy with the situation are they?
    - nostrebored 3y ago
      Sincerely — who cares? There isn’t a human right to make money from art. People make decisions based on what society deems valuable. That changes over time and has for the entirety of human history. Maybe there’s a demand for more customized art. Maybe spite patronage will make a comeback. Anyone telling you they know how it will shake out is a fraud. But the incentives we’ve set up have a natural push and pull to get people to do what society values.
      - cycomanic 3y ago
        It's funny all you guys arguing there isn't a right/law to make money from art. What do you think copyright is? The issue is that all these models were trained in blatant violation of copyright. And before you say they just take inspiration, that's the same argument as saying when I copy a movie to my harddrive it's the same remembering. It's not and a computer is not a human.
lewhoo 3y ago
Da Vinci inspired whole new generations of artists, thinkers and scientists. The net benefit of his existence distributed itself among many others - as it does with any great artist, thinker or scientist. It certainly looks like generative AI has at least in some cases the opposite effect.

quonn 3y ago

> into a commercial product which they sell access to Within a few mon the or years there will be open source implementations anyway, running locally or in a data center. Most of the technology is published.

sheepdestroyer 3y ago
Contrary to text and the big piles of "liberated" data hanging around for anyone looking hard enough to grab, the training data for video seems to be harder to access for opensource / research / individuals. Google has Youtube, OpenAI can pay whatever fee any proprietary data bank requires. There's a moat right there that I can't see how to overcome.
- jerojero 3y ago
  Weird to say I guess, but meta might release an open source model too. And they do have plenty of data to feed their models. Arguably more data than openAI should have as they don't really own any social media. Thing is, anyway, as soon as one model is open there will be copies of it, fine-tune implementations. People don't care that much about ownership of data I would say if they actually have access to the models that are produced by gathering this data. Ultimately, to me, an open source model for this tool makes a lot of sense. They use publicly available data and the models become publicly available. I for one am quite excited for this tooling to become better and better so I can make the adaptation of a book I love into a movie I imagine it can be. At least I can have a lot of fun trying.

ETH_start 3y ago

Those are not fundamentally different. A group of people coming together to create a company that trains a AI model for profit and an artist studying thousands of pieces to develop a style of their own, and then selling paintings based on that style, are both totally dependent on the body of knowledge that civilization left for them.

csallen 3y ago

> This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. How else do you get influence and inspiration without feeding other people's work into your own brain? Do you know a single artist, writer, or musician who hasn't seen other artists' paintings, read other writers' books, or listened to other musician's music? Ingesting content is the core of how influence, inspiration, and learning work. > The camera enabled something that was not possible before… The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. It's never been possible to generate thoughts, writing, and images so quickly and at such a high level. It's made creative pursuits accessible to billions who previously didn't have the skill or time to do them well, or the money to hire others. As a random example, I have friends using ChatGPT to compose creative and personalized poems and notes about each other. Not something they were doing before. > The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. The camera lessened the need of people to go to plays and pay for tickets to see things in person. Just like records, CDs, and mp3s lessened the need to go to concerts and shows. Technology is always creating and destroying ways to pay people. The ways that people get paid are not suppose to be fixed and unchanging in time.

imiric 3y ago
I agree with everything you said. I would just add two points: - The rate of change that AI forces upon us has never before been experienced. - The scale of these changes is nothing like we've ever seen before. The adoptions of the camera, radio, automobile, TV, etc., didn't happen practically overnight. Society had a good decade+ to prepare for them. Similarly, AI doesn't just change one industry. It fundamentally changes _all_ industries, and brings up some fundamental questions about the meaning of intelligence and our place in the universe. My fear is that we're not prepared for either of these things. We're not even certain how exactly this will affect us, or where this is actually all taking us, but somehow a very small group of people is inevitably forcing this on all of us. Because of this I think that being conservative, and maybe putting some strict regulation on these advancements, might not be such a bad idea.
- 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

> This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. Sure. Who do we send the compensation to for Leonardo da Vinci? Or Shakespeare, for a text-based example? Do you want them to compensate me for the stuff I uploaded to Wikipedia and licensed as public domain, or what I've uploaded to GitHub with an MIT license? A model trained only on licensed data is still an existential threat to the incomes of people whose works were never included in the model, precisely because they're only useful to the extent that they generalise beyond their own examples. > The camera enabled something that was not possible before, and I wasn’t built by taking the work of sketch artists and painters. It was an entirely new form of art and media. A new form of art that was (a) initially decried as "not art", and (b) which almost completely ended the economic value of portraiture.

throw10920 3y ago
> Who do we send the compensation to for Leonardo da Vinci? Or Shakespeare, for a text-based example? Those authors aren't alive and their works are in the public domain. Bringing them up is irrelevant and a diversion from the actual problem, which is that creators alive today whose work is under copyright today and who need to make a living from their art are having it taken with zero compensation and had it fed into AI, stealing their effort. > A model trained only on licensed data is still an existential threat to the incomes of people whose works were never included in the model, precisely because they're only useful to the extent that they generalise beyond their own examples. Again, a diversion. We can debate how much AI trained on properly-licensed AI should be controlled, but it's pretty clear that the bare minimum is for all AI training data to require explicit permission from the creator of that data.
- ben_w 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw10920 3y ago