3 ms·

Not all artists want their art taken and distributed or modified endlessly. Regardless, I think it seems important to create a system for tracking attestation

Not all artists want their art taken and distributed or modified endlessly. Regardless, I think it seems important to create a system for tracking attestation of AI produced materials, especially with regard to disinformation campaigns. This may not be the sole/express purpose of the legislation, but we will need systems of attribution in the future to determine what's human made and what's not.

ilikehurdles 2y ago
I don’t want my mind polluted by content derived from people who want the power to restrict what i do with that art
- voltaireodactyl 2y ago
  FWIW I don’t want my mind actively polluted by the media and materials derived by people who consider art “content” and all human output “training data” to support their own misguided gambles in the hopes of saving their personal portfolios from self-imposed disaster. And yet here we are. So. I hear you.
  - ilikehurdles 2y ago
    The point is, people shouldn't have the right to shove something in front of you that might inspire you to iterate, remix, or derive from that, while penalizing you if you act on those ideas. Intellectual property is mind-policing. Its success hinges entirely on it being allowed to invade public space without the public's consent, while using the state to forbid its own free distribution by the public. No one can opt-out of copyrighted content, and if they could, copyrighted works would become the slim minority of all content, or cease to exist entirely.
puppycodes 2y ago
AI doesn't have a will. AI doesn't make art. I think the real conversation is about harm. No one (nice) wants harm to be the outcome at the expense of others. The problem is identifying the harm and preventing that harm. This legislation is about the thought virus equating digital "things" with physical "things". They are not the same. We are deeply prone to skeuomorphism but we should fight this urge so we can appropriately address real harm and that is sadly being missed entirely by these politicians.
hakfoo 2y ago
If you don't want to have others distribute and modify your art, never show it to anyone else, put it in a box, and bury it five metres under your house. Even aside from any technology angle, the human mind is fundamentally very good at copying and modifying information-- it's why we can have a coherent cultural zeitgeist rather than individual siloed units of Capital-A Art. You can aspire to be part of that, and be respected for your contribution to it, but expecting everyone else to hobble their potential in service of your fetish for purity is self-indulgent if not downright sociopathic. TBH, I feel like AI is eventually going to be slotted in as a tool rather than something magical. I can't draw a straight line or a circle, but we don't feel the need to permanently stamp pictures as "he used a straightedge and compasses!" (or "He used Krita!" these days) The ability to make lots of fairly realistic stuff cheap may change some value propositions (see: portrait painters when photography took off) but eventually we'll get past the initial panic phase.
gaganyaan 2y ago
Then keep it private, and nobody else can do anything with it. Otherwise too bad

ilikehurdles 2y ago

I don’t want my mind polluted by content derived from people who want the power to restrict what i do with that art

voltaireodactyl 2y ago
FWIW I don’t want my mind actively polluted by the media and materials derived by people who consider art “content” and all human output “training data” to support their own misguided gambles in the hopes of saving their personal portfolios from self-imposed disaster. And yet here we are. So. I hear you.
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  The point is, people shouldn't have the right to shove something in front of you that might inspire you to iterate, remix, or derive from that, while penalizing you if you act on those ideas. Intellectual property is mind-policing. Its success hinges entirely on it being allowed to invade public space without the public's consent, while using the state to forbid its own free distribution by the public. No one can opt-out of copyrighted content, and if they could, copyrighted works would become the slim minority of all content, or cease to exist entirely.

puppycodes 2y ago

AI doesn't have a will. AI doesn't make art. I think the real conversation is about harm. No one (nice) wants harm to be the outcome at the expense of others. The problem is identifying the harm and preventing that harm. This legislation is about the thought virus equating digital "things" with physical "things". They are not the same. We are deeply prone to skeuomorphism but we should fight this urge so we can appropriately address real harm and that is sadly being missed entirely by these politicians.

hakfoo 2y ago

If you don't want to have others distribute and modify your art, never show it to anyone else, put it in a box, and bury it five metres under your house. Even aside from any technology angle, the human mind is fundamentally very good at copying and modifying information-- it's why we can have a coherent cultural zeitgeist rather than individual siloed units of Capital-A Art. You can aspire to be part of that, and be respected for your contribution to it, but expecting everyone else to hobble their potential in service of your fetish for purity is self-indulgent if not downright sociopathic. TBH, I feel like AI is eventually going to be slotted in as a tool rather than something magical. I can't draw a straight line or a circle, but we don't feel the need to permanently stamp pictures as "he used a straightedge and compasses!" (or "He used Krita!" these days) The ability to make lots of fairly realistic stuff cheap may change some value propositions (see: portrait painters when photography took off) but eventually we'll get past the initial panic phase.

gaganyaan 2y ago

Then keep it private, and nobody else can do anything with it. Otherwise too bad