131–140 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism isn't when you pay for things, it's when there's capital you can sell.
The capital of the artists is their intellectual property, that's the point.
Under communism artists would be barred from making art entirely, ordered by the state to work in a place where it is deemed to be productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hey haven't been in the past and they shouldn't be So what's your suggestion, free food and housing for the artistic types or mercy killings?
Or they can do a different job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.
I don't get the assumption that there should be. The machine was trained on publicly available hard that was already free. Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free? They don't have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that's just never been a part of copyright.
> They don’t have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that’s just never been a part of copyright.
Yeah this is true. Stable Diffusion and other neural networks are not “learning” from it they way humans do though, it’s remembering and remixing and interpolating pixels (fixed expression), which is a part of copyright.
BTW compensation is not a very accurate summary of this problem. Machines that borrow someone’s style and copies and remixes without attribution is inherently problematic far beyond artists who live off selling their art, it dilutes both creativity and credit, in addition to undermining people who have to work much harder than the computer to produce images. These AI completely depend on being given human-created art to begin with, and the companies that are making them and using them are already making handsome profits, so it’s reasonable to expect some kind of return in addition to proper credit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.
The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright. And yes, that's scary, but unavoidable as tech progresses. I don't think anything good could come from trying to strickten copyright here. The AI is obviously not copying directly, at best it takes…
Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept.
People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what we are seeing here is a proxy argument. Artists do not care about the copyright of people being able to learn from their art and reproduce it. It is not been an issue for decades, because it is a long established standard of copyright. You can't copy a work directly, you can learn from it and reproduce your own sort of stuff. What's different now is that this is a tool which artists can be replaced by. T…
I don't think we can look into this from copyright standpoint. It was already not working very well in the digital age, now it's completely useless. I don't object that people should learn new skills and find new jobs, my concern is that people who actually put huge effort to produce that "training data" are now left dry. They should be compensated and move on, I'm completely against hampering the abilities of AI in…
It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples.
Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful.
What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actually going to make these companies that much money either. The tools are open source. Competition is going to reduce profit on these systems to a very slim margin.
You have to not only compensate for the fact that they aren't involved in actually creating the AI, so they're only getting a fraction of what this thing is worth in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are five billion images in the training set.
The compensation is going to be nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.
That’s a sloppy answer. Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now. That’s kind of the whole point of this debate. Should we change the laws and if so, how?
Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing.
I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition already without violating the content owner copyright.
Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me.
Are there cases where an ai and a human can generate the same media but which result in the media having different legality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I seeing the same thing you are in those two images you linked to? The first one, generated by AI has you looking at the camera. The other one has you looking at an instrument. They don’t look much like each other to me, in terms of pose or anything. The first images suggested by Stable Attribution looks a lot more like the AI image to me, in terms of pose and everything.
I think you're missing the point. How does Stable Diffusion know "what does saurik look like?". The answer is of course that it's seen saurik's profile pic in training data. Stable Attribution is not showing that. As another comment[1] points out: > This appears to be just looking for the nearest neighbors of the image in embedding space and calling those the source data. Stylistically similar images are not the same…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…
The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!) When an artist learns to dra…
But there are plenty of bad laws that protect business models. Hell, copyright - the law in question - is intended to protect certain models. Regulatory Capture is a term for a reason.
I agree with other points of yours though. Copying in art is for sure a thing, and same with style changing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!) When an artist learns to dra…
Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.