201–210 of 710 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. You can either make it for yourself and keep it for yourself or you can put it out into the world for all to see, criticize, study, imitate, and admire.
that's not how licensing work, be it art, software or just about anything else. We have some pretty well defined and differentiated rules what you can and cannot do, in particular commercially or in public, with someone else's work. If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, you want to broadcast a movie in public, yo…
No you wont!
It is only someone who distributes copies who can get in trouble.
If instead of that you as an individual decide to study a piece of art or fiction, and you do no distribute copies of it to anyone, this is completely legal and you don't have to pay anyone for it.
In addition to that, fair use protections apply regardless of what the creative works creator wants.
[flagged]
A human artist cannot look at and memorize 100000 pictures in a day, and cannot paint 100000 pictures in a day. I am SO tired of this non-argument
We needed huge amounts of human labor to fund and build Versailles. I'm sure many died as a result. Now we have machines that save many of those lives and labor.
What's your non-argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. You can either make it for yourself and keep it for yourself or you can put it out into the world for all to see, criticize, study, imitate, and admire.
that's not how licensing work, be it art, software or just about anything else. We have some pretty well defined and differentiated rules what you can and cannot do, in particular commercially or in public, with someone else's work. If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, you want to broadcast a movie in public, yo…
The only explanation I can find for this backlash is that artists are actually worried just like the rest of us that pretty soon AI will produce higher quality more inventive work faster and more imaginatively than they can - which is very natural, but not a reason to inhibit an AI's creative education.
[flagged]
Most artists are happy to see more people getting into art and joining the community. More artists means the skills of this culture get passed down to the next generation.
Obviously a billion dollar corporation using their work to create an industrial tool designed to displace them is very different.
Long-term I think the real problem for artists will be corporations generating their own high quality targeted datasets from a cheap labor pool, completely outcompeting them by a landslide.
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)…
Being able to fairly monetise your creative work and put food on the table is a bit rivalrous though, don’t you think?
The way societies work is that the members of the society contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with lots of excess production may at times choose to allow creative works to be monetized. Societies without much surplus are extremely unlikely to do so, eg a society with not enough food for everyone to eat in the middle of a famine is extremely unlikely to feed people who only create art; those people will have to contribute in some other way.
I think it is a very modern western idea (less than a century old) that many artists can dedicate themselves solely to producing the art they want to produce. In all other times artists either had day jobs or worked on commission.