4 ms·

the technologies you mentioned helped spread very useful information, not worthless images devoid of meaning, artistic expression and thought also, even in abs

the technologies you mentioned helped spread very useful information, not worthless images devoid of meaning, artistic expression and thought also, even in absence of copyright, the unprecedented scale of art theft that these technologies necessitate would be morally questionable

GaggiX 2y ago
There is no theft; this is simply how any being, human or not, works, or else you would be a caveman.
- taminka 2y ago
  i'm sorry, but you have to be extremely naive to think that all these companies actually respect people's work enough to verify that all their training data is properly licensed, and deliberately hinder themselves and put themselves behind their competitors by avoiding any copyrighted work
  - GaggiX 2y ago
    They clearly do not avoid copyrighted work, where in my reply did you infer the opposite?
    - taminka 2y ago
      > where in my reply did you infer the opposite here > There is no theft
      - pixl97 2y ago
        Copyright infringement is not theft.
        taminka 2y ago
        not legally i guess, but in spirit i'd say it is? also obviously depends on the case, copyright law is often very stupid and broken, like there's no reason why this book written 100 years ago isn't in public domain, but scraping millions of images from artists' websites kinda is
      - GaggiX 2y ago
        Well there is no theft ahah But even if by "theft" you mean "copyright infringement" there is a strong argument for fair use, we humans consume large amounts of copyrighted content and are influenced by it in everything we do, I don't find it unethical or wrong in general, and I don't see how it should be any different for a machine, unless you are against job automation, but in this case you seem to be worried about "theft". Edit: HN thinks that I'm posting too fast so my reply to the comment below here ahah: "Well, then we agree that it wouldn't be a problem if the model didn't output an image from the training dataset, which is extremely rare or essentially impossible with today's dedup steps used during dataset creation."
        taminka 2y ago
        models will straight up return training data sometimes if you prompt them with like an image file name like IMG_1234.JPG though i'd say that this is not the equivalent of a human glancing at an image and then have the memory of details of that image have some small influence on their way of thinking and imagining and creating, i'd say that's theft
llm_trw 2y ago
The first large scale use of the printing press outside books was to print indulgences: > In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from indulgeo, 'permit') is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for (forgiven) sins".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions…"[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence This directly lead to the reformation and two centuries of religious wars in Europe which proportionally killed more people than both the world wars combined. The printing press has more blood on it than ink. By contrast the worst you can say about art models is that they are 'derivative' whatever that means.
- taminka 2y ago
  printing press has legitimate applications besides printing indulgences, ai image generators have no legitimate applications one technology could be used to do bad things, the other technology is guaranteed to only be used to do bad things
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    >ai image generators have no legitimate applications They are amazing replacements for the clone tool from photo shop. >one technology could be used to do bad things, the other technology is guaranteed to only be used to do bad things One technology is used to make pictures, the other to commit genocide. My dude, I don't often say it, but go out and touch grass.
    - taminka 2y ago
      i have to ask, do you also count world war victims as victims of the printing press because military orders and propaganda were printed on paper? is the the telephone, copper in the wires and electromagnetism itself also complicit in genocide, because they were used for communication in nazi germany?
  - 2y ago
ben_w 2y ago
> the technologies you mentioned helped spread very useful information, not worthless images devoid of meaning, artistic expression and thought Both. They did both. Cameras replaced most portrait painters, but they also gave us "Paint Drying" which is 10 hours 7 minutes long film of exactly what it sounds like — deliberately worthless images devoid of meaning as it's a protest. And when I was a kid, the talking heads in the press were upset about cable TV introducing the UK to the cartoon channel, with a similar argument to yours.

GaggiX 2y ago

There is no theft; this is simply how any being, human or not, works, or else you would be a caveman.

taminka 2y ago
i'm sorry, but you have to be extremely naive to think that all these companies actually respect people's work enough to verify that all their training data is properly licensed, and deliberately hinder themselves and put themselves behind their competitors by avoiding any copyrighted work
- GaggiX 2y ago
  They clearly do not avoid copyrighted work, where in my reply did you infer the opposite?
  - taminka 2y ago
    > where in my reply did you infer the opposite here > There is no theft
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Copyright infringement is not theft.
      - taminka 2y ago
        not legally i guess, but in spirit i'd say it is? also obviously depends on the case, copyright law is often very stupid and broken, like there's no reason why this book written 100 years ago isn't in public domain, but scraping millions of images from artists' websites kinda is
    - GaggiX 2y ago
      Well there is no theft ahah But even if by "theft" you mean "copyright infringement" there is a strong argument for fair use, we humans consume large amounts of copyrighted content and are influenced by it in everything we do, I don't find it unethical or wrong in general, and I don't see how it should be any different for a machine, unless you are against job automation, but in this case you seem to be worried about "theft". Edit: HN thinks that I'm posting too fast so my reply to the comment below here ahah: "Well, then we agree that it wouldn't be a problem if the model didn't output an image from the training dataset, which is extremely rare or essentially impossible with today's dedup steps used during dataset creation."
      - taminka 2y ago
        models will straight up return training data sometimes if you prompt them with like an image file name like IMG_1234.JPG though i'd say that this is not the equivalent of a human glancing at an image and then have the memory of details of that image have some small influence on their way of thinking and imagining and creating, i'd say that's theft

llm_trw 2y ago

The first large scale use of the printing press outside books was to print indulgences: > In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from indulgeo, 'permit') is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for (forgiven) sins".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions…"[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence This directly lead to the reformation and two centuries of religious wars in Europe which proportionally killed more people than both the world wars combined. The printing press has more blood on it than ink. By contrast the worst you can say about art models is that they are 'derivative' whatever that means.

taminka 2y ago
printing press has legitimate applications besides printing indulgences, ai image generators have no legitimate applications one technology could be used to do bad things, the other technology is guaranteed to only be used to do bad things
- llm_trw 2y ago
  >ai image generators have no legitimate applications They are amazing replacements for the clone tool from photo shop. >one technology could be used to do bad things, the other technology is guaranteed to only be used to do bad things One technology is used to make pictures, the other to commit genocide. My dude, I don't often say it, but go out and touch grass.
  - taminka 2y ago
    i have to ask, do you also count world war victims as victims of the printing press because military orders and propaganda were printed on paper? is the the telephone, copper in the wires and electromagnetism itself also complicit in genocide, because they were used for communication in nazi germany?
- 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

> the technologies you mentioned helped spread very useful information, not worthless images devoid of meaning, artistic expression and thought Both. They did both. Cameras replaced most portrait painters, but they also gave us "Paint Drying" which is 10 hours 7 minutes long film of exactly what it sounds like — deliberately worthless images devoid of meaning as it's a protest. And when I was a kid, the talking heads in the press were upset about cable TV introducing the UK to the cartoon channel, with a similar argument to yours.