341–350 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.
Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.
This seems like a pretty pointless "arms race" or "cat and mouse game". People who want to train generative image models and who don't care about what artists think about it at all can just do some basic post-processing on the images that is just enough to destroy the very carefully tuned changes this Nightshade algorithm makes. Something like resampling it to slightly lower resolution and then using another super-re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because their wage is inflated. Photographers were mad about digital cameras too. Womp womp.
Inflated is not an apt descriptor of artist wages, those are known to be low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.
Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.
The number of people who are going to be able to produce high fidelity art with off the shelf tools in the near future is unbelievable. It’s pretty exciting. Being able to find a mix of styles you like and apply them to new subjects to make your own unique, personalized, artwork sounds like a wickedly cool power to give to billions of people.
In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.
I'm sure OpenAI's models can shit out an approximation of a new Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams novel, but nobody with any level of literary appreciation would give a damn unless fraud was committed to trick readers into buying it. It's not the author's work, and there's no human message behind it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the 'unbounded factor' is irrelevant because the output will quickly trend into random noise. And only the most interesting top few million art pieces will actually attract the attention of any concrete individual. For a current example, there's already billions of man-hours worth of AI spam writing, indexed by Google, that is likely not actually read by even a single person on Earth.
Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that a machine being able to copy the artistic style of a human makes it so that anyone can produce output in the style of that human by just feeding the machine electricity. That inherently devalues the style the artist has painstakingly developed. If someone wants a piece of art in that artist's style they don't have to go to that artist, they just ne…
It's just as much of an opinion, or as 'objective', as your prior statements.
Your going to have to face up to the fact that just saying something is 'objective' doesn't necessarily mean all 8 billion people will agree that it is so.
This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…
You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?
“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%? If OpenAI's output reproduces a copyrighted image with one pixel changed, is that valid in your view? Where does the line end? Copyrighted material should never be used for nonacademic language models. "Garbage in, garbage out." All results are tainted. "But being forced to use non-copyrighted works will only slow things down!" Maybe that's a good thing, too. Copyright is something…
Copyright is decided by the courts, it's a legal thing not some a biological. If the courts decide it's legal it will be.
By virtue of the fact that it is "fuzzy" and open to interpretation, we're going to see lawsuits, the resulting chilling effects of those lawsuits will blunt US tech firms from the practice of ingesting large amounts of copywritten material without a second thought. US tech firms will be giving it a second, third, fourth, etc. thought once the lawsuits start.
It's gonna be like submarine patents on steroids.
Like I said, I'm down for letting the courts decide. But AI supporters should probably avoid kicking the hornets' nests regarding copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who pays to use generators? The open ones are way more capable and interesting, generally.
Isn't high-quality open image generation almost entirely dependent on Stability releasing their foundational models for free, at great expense to them? That's not something you'll be able to rely on long-term, there won't always be a firehose of venture capital money to subsidise that kind of charity.
This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…
You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?