61–70 of 232 posts
Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…
Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…
I think many artists will see that if they publish anything original then AI companies will immediately use it as training data without regards to copyright. The result will be less original art. They will simply stop creating it or publishing it. IMO music streaming has similarly lead to a collapse in quality music artistry, as fewer talented individuals are incentivised to go down that path. AI will do the same for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. She was lucky to be able to retire when she did, as the job of a translator is definitely going to become extinct. You can already get higher quality translations from machine learning model…
This is just not true, LLMs struggle very hard with even basic recursive questions, nuances and dialects
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the…
Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of many creative professions is rather uncreative. But translating a book, comic or movie requires creative decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the idioms and cultural context of a different language. The difference between a good and a bag translation can be stark
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s great that you have sympathy for illustrators, but I don’t see a big difference if the training data is a novel, a picture, a song, a piece of code, or even a piece of legal text. As my mom retired from being a translator, she went from typewriter to machine-assisted translation with centralised corpus-databases. All the while the available work became less and less, and the wages became lower and lower. In the…
Here’s the argument: The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators. The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output. The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation. There are entire art movements and music genres that wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art.
> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.
Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements, and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we consider that machines can create a practically infinite number of permutations based on their source data, it's not unthinkable that they could also create art that humans consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs. Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great artists steal", etc.
So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art can also set trends and shape the space they're generated in.
The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional laws like copyright, and considering whether we can implement a new framework that's fair towards creators without the drawbacks of the current system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI recently redirected sora.com, which used to be its own domain, to sora.chatgpt.com. Probably to share cookies.
Cookies are such a mess. We need cross-domain cookies. Google took them away so they could further entrench their analytics and ads platform. Abuse of monopoly power.
We use first-party cookies for session management.
We use APIs and signed tokens (JWT) to federate across domains without leaking user data.
The ones hurt by the death of third-party cookies are ad tech parasites who refused to innovate imho...
In all seriousness I wonder where is this all headed? Are people long term going to be more forgiving of visual artifacts if it will mean that their favourite franchise gets another season? Or will generated imagery be shunned just like the not-so-subtle use of 3D models?
Some of these are very obviously trained on webtoons and manga, probably pixiv as well. This is very clear due to seeing CG buildings and other misc artifacts. So this is obviously trained on copyrighted material. Art is something that cannot be generated like synthetic text so it will have to be nearly forever powered by human artists or else you will continue to end up with artifacting. So it makes me wonder if art…
10 years ago: "real real text cannot be generated like stock phrases, so writing will be nearly forever powered by human writers."
I welcome this. I know there is a huge market for those excited for infinite anime music videos and all things anime. This is great for an abundance of content and everyone will become anime artists now. Japan is truly is embracing AI and there will be new jobs for everyone thanks to the boom AI is creating as well as Jevons paradox which will create huge demand. Even better if this open source.
Nowadays it seems everyone is interested by "anime style" of content but all I see is terrible in term of quality. It seems quantity increased so much in the last 30 years it only made quality stuff more invisible and we are inundated with animelike trash.