3 ms·

> I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. I m

> I don't understand how AI is any different than going to Fiverr. I can specify what I want in the style I want, and have a human do it versus a computer. I mean, if you ignore all the massive differences in paying a human to do something versus paying an LLM service to do it, sure. But you're effectively throwing at least ethics and care for the environment out the window in one case. > Once I say "1960's Archie comic", why doesn't the work instantly become derivative whether a human does it versus a computer? It does. Just because you can commission art from someone doesn't mean you won't get sued if you start trying to use it as the logo for your business. If you put Foghorn Leghorn on the logo of your chicken business, you'll be sued. Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued, though by doing it on commission the terms likely mean the requestor is the one who's liable Earlier I noted clean room implementations. The software industry went to incredible lengths to be able to interoperate with competitors without violating copyright.

bb88 2y ago
> Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does AI output becomes transformative versus not? No one owns the 1960's comic art style. But did mentioning "Archie" somehow make a difference? I don't think it does. I might be wrong. So I don't understand how it becomes a problem once a computer does it versus a human. If it's a legal issue, then I might be more persuaded. If it's an ethical issue only, well... this can be thrown on top of the heap of ethical issues businesses have long ignored -- and your arguments is screaming into the wind, as it were. I think if you argue for UBI, or some kind of remuneration then we can argue about who deserves it. Truck Drivers who lose there jobs to AI? Open Source Software Engineers? Artists? Writers? Normally this would normally be served by things like unemployment insurance in the US, but we as a society hate freeloaders. I think with UBI or something similar we could have more people doing things they enjoy, so maybe we would have more artists, rather than less. But again, that would be, socialism, which we also hate.

bb88 2y ago

> Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does AI output becomes transformative versus not? No one owns the 1960's comic art style. But did mentioning "Archie" somehow make a difference? I don't think it does. I might be wrong. So I don't understand how it becomes a problem once a computer does it versus a human. If it's a legal issue, then I might be more persuaded. If it's an ethical issue only, well... this can be thrown on top of the heap of ethical issues businesses have long ignored -- and your arguments is screaming into the wind, as it were. I think if you argue for UBI, or some kind of remuneration then we can argue about who deserves it. Truck Drivers who lose there jobs to AI? Open Source Software Engineers? Artists? Writers? Normally this would normally be served by things like unemployment insurance in the US, but we as a society hate freeloaders. I think with UBI or something similar we could have more people doing things they enjoy, so maybe we would have more artists, rather than less. But again, that would be, socialism, which we also hate.