191–200 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a human artist I don't feel the same as you, and I somehow doubt that you care all that much about what we think anyways. You already made up your mind about the tech, so don't feel the need to protect us from "a tool of capital [sic]" to fortify your argument.
Among working human artists your opinion is in the minority. Most professionals are not a fan of this.
Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology when it is a non-issue to any model by simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use.
The reason people are arguing against this technology is that no one is using them in the way you describe. They actually wouldn't even be economically viable in that case.
Anyone arguing against this technology following the line of reasoning you present is operating in adverse to the good of society. Especially if their only motive is economic viability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My issue with this line of argument is that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. It’s fine to compare how humans do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and software logic. First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the sa…
>First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the same way as humans. No, you don't need to prove any of those things. They're irrelevant. You'd need to prove that the AI is itself morally (or, depending on the nature of the dispute, legally) equivalent to a human and therefore deserving of (or ent…
No you don't.
A human using a computer to make art doesn't automatically lose their fair use rights as a human.
> indisputably the case that software is not currently legally equivalent to a human
Fortunately it is the human who uses the computer who has the legal rights to use computers in their existing process of fair use.
Human brains or giving rights to computers has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of human to use a camera, use photoshop, or even use AI, on a computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly the point. The same can be said for road rules between vehicles and pedestrians, for example in major Indian cities, it's pretty much a free-for-all.
My point is that in a lot of places in the US you can point a video camera at the street and record. In Germany, you can't. The law in some locales makes a distinction between manual recording (writing or drawing your surroundings) and mechanized recording (photographing or filming). Scalability of an action is taken into consideration on whether something is ok to do or not.
There's a nonzero chance that encouraging the creation of a large dataset of known tampered data can ironically improve generative AI art models by allowing the model to recognize tampered data and allow the training process to work around it.
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)…
I don't see the parallel between this offensive tool and DRM. I could, say buy a perpetual license to an image from the artist, so that I can print it and put it on my wall, while it can simultaneously be poisonous to an AI system. I can even steal it and print it, while it is still poisonous to an AI system. The closest parallel I can think of is that humans can ingest chocolate but dogs should not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is DRM, just a different form than media encryption. It's a purely-digital mechanism of enforcing rights.
It doesn’t enforce any rights. It modifies the actual image. Humans and computers still have equal, open access to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.
great comment! imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your style. but it's still different than some computer model "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other peoples talent. i get that this is cynical and does…
Art is the biggest gate kept industry there is and I detest artists who believe only they are the chosen one.
Art is human expression. We all have a right to create what we want with whatever tools we want. They can adapt or be left behind. No sympathy from me.
I would believe there is enough content out there to get reasonably good results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t enforce any rights. It modifies the actual image. Humans and computers still have equal, open access to it.
It’s designed to restrict the purposes for which the consumer can use the work. It is exactly like DRM in this way.