3 ms·

Yeah, this is where I find the copyright argument a little weak. Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work. Instead, I feel like the

Yeah, this is where I find the copyright argument a little weak. Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work. Instead, I feel like the objections are (rightly) these two issues: 1. GenAI operates at a much larger scale than an individual artist. I don't think artists would have an issue with someone commissioning a portrait say in the style Van Gogh (copyright argument). They would have an issue if that artist painted 100,000 pictures a day in the style of Van Gogh. 2. Lack of giving back: some of the greatest artists have internalized great art from previous generations, and then something miraculous happens. An entirely new style emerges. They have now given back to the community that incubated them. I don't really see this same giving back with GenAI. Edit: one other thought. Adobe used their own legally created art to train their model, and people still complain about it, so I don't buy the copyright argument if they're upset about Adobe's GenAI. Edit 2: I'm not condoning blatant copyright infringement like is detailed in this post.

alganet 1y ago
Copyright is a nightmare. It's just that it sounds like a gentler nightmare than hyperscaled algorithms controlled by a few.
charcircuit 1y ago
>Lack of giving back I disagree. There is a ton of free AI generated text, code, images, and video available for completely free for people to learn from.
- chrisldgk 1y ago
  Which is just laundered from real material that real humans put work in to create, only to be regurgitated by a krass homonculous of 1s and 0s for free without any mention of the real work that has been put into creating that information. I’m not a big fan of the copyright system we have myself, but there’s a reason it exists. AI companies illegally training their AI on copyrighted content to reap the spoils of the hard work of other people that never get recognition for their work is the opposite of „giving back“.
visarga 1y ago
1. If I wanted the "style of Van Gogh" I would simply download Van Gogh, why waste time and money on approximative AI. But if I want something Else, then I can use AI. But Gen AI is really the worst infringement tool, for example would anyone try to read bootleg Harry Potter from a LLM to avoid payment? Don't think so. 2. LLMs will give back what you put in + what they learned, it's your job to put in the original parts. But every so often this interaction will spark some new ideas. The LLM+human team can get where neither of them would get alone, building on each other's ideas.
bluefirebrand 1y ago
> Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work I don't think that computer systems of any kind should have the same right to fair use that humans have I think humans should get fair use carve outs for fanart and derivative work, but AI should not
Amekedl 1y ago
No, this "observing" argument has already been beaten to death by a multitude of creatives explaining way better than I could how they learn and operate. If you really think all they do is observe, form a gradient from millions of samples and spit out some approximations, you are deeply mistaken. You cannot equate human learning with how genai learns (and if it did, we'd have agi already imao)

alganet 1y ago

Copyright is a nightmare. It's just that it sounds like a gentler nightmare than hyperscaled algorithms controlled by a few.

charcircuit 1y ago

>Lack of giving back I disagree. There is a ton of free AI generated text, code, images, and video available for completely free for people to learn from.

chrisldgk 1y ago
Which is just laundered from real material that real humans put work in to create, only to be regurgitated by a krass homonculous of 1s and 0s for free without any mention of the real work that has been put into creating that information. I’m not a big fan of the copyright system we have myself, but there’s a reason it exists. AI companies illegally training their AI on copyrighted content to reap the spoils of the hard work of other people that never get recognition for their work is the opposite of „giving back“.

visarga 1y ago

1. If I wanted the "style of Van Gogh" I would simply download Van Gogh, why waste time and money on approximative AI. But if I want something Else, then I can use AI. But Gen AI is really the worst infringement tool, for example would anyone try to read bootleg Harry Potter from a LLM to avoid payment? Don't think so. 2. LLMs will give back what you put in + what they learned, it's your job to put in the original parts. But every so often this interaction will spark some new ideas. The LLM+human team can get where neither of them would get alone, building on each other's ideas.

bluefirebrand 1y ago

> Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work I don't think that computer systems of any kind should have the same right to fair use that humans have I think humans should get fair use carve outs for fanart and derivative work, but AI should not

Amekedl 1y ago

No, this "observing" argument has already been beaten to death by a multitude of creatives explaining way better than I could how they learn and operate. If you really think all they do is observe, form a gradient from millions of samples and spit out some approximations, you are deeply mistaken. You cannot equate human learning with how genai learns (and if it did, we'd have agi already imao)