71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still prompt AI.
But your prompt is merely a suggestion to the AI model. You aren't the one making the image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is betting LLMs wont get enough non copyrighted training material to be useful. Especially for text thats likely not the case. Pretty sure its a moot point anyway as you have no way to proof what was in the training set and what wasnt. I very much expect parallel construction if push comes to shove.
An LLM trained on public-domain or liberal-license material would be a great counterexample ... if anyone built it. The popular models in wide use do disclose what they train on (sometimes under NDA) and they all contained copyrighted work.
Once you know what behavior you want from the net, recreating that from non-copyrighted material might turn out to be a lot less difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? > but it might replace the need to _pay them_ for the contribution assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee, or was using material that was publicly available to be learnt off, the contribution is…
> so do you not claim that a student learning off textbook No, these are not the same. A student has mental faculties that ChatGPT does not. The understanding-free predictive text processing of ChatGPT is the whole deal of that software. A student does not require 10 thousand textbooks as examples in order to understand a concept. Students do exhibit originality and reasoning that is not in the training data. You sho…
If you removed all of humanities writing and language and raised a million ignoramuses it would be quite a while before you got Shakespeare v2 centuries at minimum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But your prompt is merely a suggestion to the AI model. You aren't the one making the image.
This is stemming from a conviction about where the difficulty in the creation process is at. That changes with technological advances. Automation often makes practical skills economically worthless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is stemming from a conviction about where the difficulty in the creation process is at. That changes with technological advances. Automation often makes practical skills economically worthless.
Art is separate from economics. It has existed before there were markets or even complex societies. Also, the amount of effort is not what determines art. However, I think art requires one to be the actor in the process that generates the work. The big issue I have with AI art is that you could have very clear image in mind that you wish to generate, and spend lots of time tweaking your prompt to the model, but you w…
Couldnt you say the same about pen and pencil? Or any other medium? Turning imagination into something physical/digital/real always entails loss. This might be a matter of a few more iterations of better usability. If you are able to put the the limits of the machine representation of your imagination into words they might iteratively vanish. You wont connect your imagination to a machine but to words.
Posts were also about creativity and design in the context of copyright thus the focus on economics. Art for its own sake as a personal pursuit doesnt really relate to that perspective. Unless you want to trade in other currencies (fame and number of impressions) in which case its the age old competition of what is able to speak to people on a deeper level. For which the representation is often less important then the idea / perspective and how that is able to resonate with people. For that the medium is just that, a medium.
Specifically for this community, it will be interesting to see what the agreements were regarding AI. That was a major issue in negotiations for both sides. I think the decisions here could go a long way in setting a precedent for how that technology will continue to be developed and how it will be used in the future. For example, if the writers get what they wanted, it means Hollywood has little motivation to put it…
Agreed. I was a professional actor 20 years ago when digital and streaming were first coming into play, and the seeds sown in the agreements from that time were painfully lacking for working actors. The precedents set have continued to this day. I'm torn on the AI/copyright issue. On the one hand, for actors, having your image and likeness digitally reproduced in perpetuity without compensation goes against the very…
I find it very strange writers and actors think they're somehow unique in this. They'll be looked back upon as a group of luddites hampering progress for personal gain.