Everything we do as humans is a form of copying. Our languages, our thoughts, our jobs, our hobbies. We stand on the shoulders of all that came before us.
The ability to imagine or evaluate art is easy. The ability to create it takes time. AI removes the tyranny of opportunity cost in learning this talent at the expense of others. Just as your washing machine removed the manual labor of washing your clothes, freeing you up to do more.
Digital cameras did not make photographers go extinct. And they created so much more previously unpredicted societal wealth that impacted us in ways we couldn't have imaged, such as the creation of online dating (selfies), QR code scanners, interactive translation lenses, 3D scanners (NeRFs), and so much more.
AI/ML will probably turn all of us into our own Spielbergs / Scorseses / Miyazakis, and it probably doesn't stop there.
> AI/ML will probably turn all of us into our own Spielbergs / Scorseses / Miyazakis, and it probably doesn't stop there.
Sure, buddy, just like ChatGPT will turn us into Einsteins, Knuths and Turings (hint: they won’t, you can’t replicate exceptional people with a crutch; exceptional people will be able to utilize it, but not general public)
> Sure, buddy, just like ChatGPT will turn us into Einsteins, Knuths and Turings (hint: they won’t, you can’t replicate exceptional people with a crutch; exceptional people will be able to utilize it, but not general public)
Run-of-the-mill programmers are now building extremely complex solutions thanks to data structures and algorithms invented by the likes of Knuth. Sometimes it helps knowing the internals, most of the time, however people are using them only knowing inputs, outputs, and the name of the API method.
From fact checking myself it is worth noting that stable diffusion will absolutely copy things in ways that would probably infringe a copyright (not a layer and not legal advice), but I found this paper interesting both because some of the examples it gives of clear copying don't look all that copied to me, and because some do and they find overall a relatively high rate of copying. 1.8% https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03860. I believe this is still not peer reviewed.
It’s the same thing. An interesting thing to consider is that the stable diffusion model was trained on terrabytes if images but the output is a 4GB model. Copying would require access to the originals but clearly the original art is are long gone and any output is new generation from learning.
And how much of the revenue generated by that photograph was ever seen by the subject of it?
It's a particularly pertinent example as the model in that photo was actually forced into taking the shot against her will, and had her life subsequently ruined over it, meanwhile further propelling the photographer to riches.
Should we be arguing against the development of cameras to stop this kind of thing from happening?
People talking about copyright exclusively talk about revenue.
Copyright isn’t meant to gatekeep people from copying each other just because it’s fun to gatekeep. The entire reasoning we give to continue using that system is based on revenue.
GPL depends on copyright! It literally depends on parts of copyright frameworks that grant authors to have fun gatekeeping others.
FSF guys had been fighting and defeating "you saying we stole GPL'd code is bogus because free internet stuff can't be stolen" for decades. It just makes no sense that you'd assume the foundation of GPL applies to code but not to images.
Would you please stop posting repetitive flamewar comments? Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, we have to ban accounts that carry on like this. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We can be ethical about it, ai ethics is important. Currently ai art uses datasets that it has no permission to use. The same company swears not to use copyrighted music in its datasets though.
(Re)invent collective rights management or whatever. This can't go on like this. The United States allowed a company deliberately flout the law to roll back the protections organized labor achieved in a century plus and destroy the livelihood of cab medallion holders as a side hustle, are we going to repeat that? The recording and movie industry has been steadfast on cracking down on what they perceived as theft but the art community was caught unawares by this. As a society we need to stop this until a solution is found. Extend copyright in such a way that this is not legal until a solution is found to compensate the artists. This is extremely urgent.
A better example is the portrait painter trembling at seeing the first example of photography. You can pretty much see at any gallery when the camera changes art.
To me these arguments are by kids and art simpletons.
Art is always changing. As if the only true art is in making marble sculptures of Zeus.
Everything we do as humans is a form of copying. Our languages, our thoughts, our jobs, our hobbies. We stand on the shoulders of all that came before us.
The ability to imagine or evaluate art is easy. The ability to create it takes time. AI removes the tyranny of opportunity cost in learning this talent at the expense of others. Just as your washing machine removed the manual labor of washing your clothes, freeing you up to do more.
Digital cameras did not make photographers go extinct. And they created so much more previously unpredicted societal wealth that impacted us in ways we couldn't have imaged, such as the creation of online dating (selfies), QR code scanners, interactive translation lenses, 3D scanners (NeRFs), and so much more.
AI/ML will probably turn all of us into our own Spielbergs / Scorseses / Miyazakis, and it probably doesn't stop there.