4 ms·

This is an anti-human ideology as bad as the worst of communism. Humanity only survives as much as it preserves human dignity, let's say. We've designed societ

This is an anti-human ideology as bad as the worst of communism. Humanity only survives as much as it preserves human dignity, let's say. We've designed society to give rewards to people who produce things of value. These companies take that value and giving nothing back to the creators. Supporting this will lead to disaster for all but the few, and ultimately for the few themselves. Paying for your (copyrighted) inputs is harmony.

apantel 2y ago
These models literally need ALL data. The amount of work it would take just to account for all the copyrights, let alone negotiate and compensate the creators, would be infeasible. I think it’s likely that the justice system will deem model training as fair use, provided that the models are not designed to exactly reproduce the training data as output. I think you hit on an important point though: these models are a giant transfer of wealth from creators to consumers / users. Now anyone can acquire artist-grade art for any purpose, basically for free — that’s a huge boon for the consumer / user. People all around the world are going to be enriched by these models. Anyone in the world will be able to have access to a tutor in their language who can teach them anything. Again, that is only possible because the models eat ALL the data. Another important point: original artwork has been made almost completely obsolete by this technology. The deed is done, because even if you push it out 70 years, eventually all of the artwork that these models have been trained on will be public domain. So, 70 years from now (or whatever it is) the cat will be out of the bag AND free of copyright obligations, so 2-3 generations from now it will be impossible to make a living selling artwork. It’s done. When something becomes obsolete, it’s a dead man walking. It will not survive, even if it may take a while for people to catch up. Like when the vacuum tube computer was invented, that was it for relay computers. Done. And when the transistor was invented, that was it for vacuum tube computers. It’s just a matter of time before all of today’s data is public domain and the models just do what they do. …but people still build relay computers for fun: https://youtu.be/JZyFSrNyhy8?si=8MRNznoNqmAChAqr https://youtu.be/JZyFSrNyhy8?si=8MRNznoNqmAChAqr So people will still produce artwork.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > So people will still produce artwork. There's zero doubt that people will still create art. Almost no one will be paid to do it though (relative to our current situation where there are already far more unpaid artists than paid ones). We'll lose an immeasurable amount of amazing new art that "would have been" as a result, and in its place we'll get increasingly bland/derivative AI generated content. Much of the art humans will create entirely for free in whatever spare time they can manage after their regular "for pay" work will be training data for future AI, but it will be extremely hard for humans to find as it will be drowned out by the endless stream of AI generated art that will also be the bulk of what AI finds and learns from.
  - dolmen 2y ago
    AI will just be another tool that artists will use. However the issue is that it will be much harder to make a career in the digital world from an artistic gift and personal style: one's style will not be unique for long as AI will quickly copy it and so make the original much less valuable.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      AI will certainly be a tool that artists use, but non-artists will use it too so very few will ever have the need to pay an artist for their work. The only work artists are likely to get will be cleaning up AI output, and I doubt they'll find that to be very fulfilling or that it pays them well enough to make a living. When it's harder to make a career in the digital world (where most of the art is), it's more likely that many artists will never get the opportunity to fully develop their artistic gifts and personal style at all. If artists are lucky then maybe in a few generations with fewer new creative works being created, AI almost entirely training on AI generated art will mean that the output will only get more generic and simplistic over time. Perhaps some people will eventually pay humans again for art that's better quality and different.
      - 5040 2y ago
        The prevalence of these lines of thought make me wonder if we'd see a similar backlash against Star-Trek style food-replicators. "Free food machines are being be used by greedy corporations to put artisanal chefs out of business. We must outlaw the free food machines."
idle_zealot 2y ago
> We've designed society to give rewards to people who produce things of value Is that really what copyright does though? I would be all for some arrangement to reward valuable contributions, but the way copyright goes about allocating that reward is by removing the right of everyone but the copyright holder to use information or share a cultural artifact. Making it illegal to, say, incorporate a bar you found inspiring into a song you make and share, or to tell and distribute stories about some characters that you connected with, is profoundly anti-human.

apantel 2y ago

These models literally need ALL data. The amount of work it would take just to account for all the copyrights, let alone negotiate and compensate the creators, would be infeasible. I think it’s likely that the justice system will deem model training as fair use, provided that the models are not designed to exactly reproduce the training data as output. I think you hit on an important point though: these models are a giant transfer of wealth from creators to consumers / users. Now anyone can acquire artist-grade art for any purpose, basically for free — that’s a huge boon for the consumer / user. People all around the world are going to be enriched by these models. Anyone in the world will be able to have access to a tutor in their language who can teach them anything. Again, that is only possible because the models eat ALL the data. Another important point: original artwork has been made almost completely obsolete by this technology. The deed is done, because even if you push it out 70 years, eventually all of the artwork that these models have been trained on will be public domain. So, 70 years from now (or whatever it is) the cat will be out of the bag AND free of copyright obligations, so 2-3 generations from now it will be impossible to make a living selling artwork. It’s done. When something becomes obsolete, it’s a dead man walking. It will not survive, even if it may take a while for people to catch up. Like when the vacuum tube computer was invented, that was it for relay computers. Done. And when the transistor was invented, that was it for vacuum tube computers. It’s just a matter of time before all of today’s data is public domain and the models just do what they do. …but people still build relay computers for fun: https://youtu.be/JZyFSrNyhy8?si=8MRNznoNqmAChAqr https://youtu.be/JZyFSrNyhy8?si=8MRNznoNqmAChAqr So people will still produce artwork.

autoexec 2y ago
> So people will still produce artwork. There's zero doubt that people will still create art. Almost no one will be paid to do it though (relative to our current situation where there are already far more unpaid artists than paid ones). We'll lose an immeasurable amount of amazing new art that "would have been" as a result, and in its place we'll get increasingly bland/derivative AI generated content. Much of the art humans will create entirely for free in whatever spare time they can manage after their regular "for pay" work will be training data for future AI, but it will be extremely hard for humans to find as it will be drowned out by the endless stream of AI generated art that will also be the bulk of what AI finds and learns from.
- dolmen 2y ago
  AI will just be another tool that artists will use. However the issue is that it will be much harder to make a career in the digital world from an artistic gift and personal style: one's style will not be unique for long as AI will quickly copy it and so make the original much less valuable.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    AI will certainly be a tool that artists use, but non-artists will use it too so very few will ever have the need to pay an artist for their work. The only work artists are likely to get will be cleaning up AI output, and I doubt they'll find that to be very fulfilling or that it pays them well enough to make a living. When it's harder to make a career in the digital world (where most of the art is), it's more likely that many artists will never get the opportunity to fully develop their artistic gifts and personal style at all. If artists are lucky then maybe in a few generations with fewer new creative works being created, AI almost entirely training on AI generated art will mean that the output will only get more generic and simplistic over time. Perhaps some people will eventually pay humans again for art that's better quality and different.
    - 5040 2y ago
      The prevalence of these lines of thought make me wonder if we'd see a similar backlash against Star-Trek style food-replicators. "Free food machines are being be used by greedy corporations to put artisanal chefs out of business. We must outlaw the free food machines."

idle_zealot 2y ago

> We've designed society to give rewards to people who produce things of value Is that really what copyright does though? I would be all for some arrangement to reward valuable contributions, but the way copyright goes about allocating that reward is by removing the right of everyone but the copyright holder to use information or share a cultural artifact. Making it illegal to, say, incorporate a bar you found inspiring into a song you make and share, or to tell and distribute stories about some characters that you connected with, is profoundly anti-human.