641–650 of 769 posts
Things are about to get a lot worse for generative AI in the United States They are about to be infinitely better for generative AI in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it makes generative AI essentially unusable, because you don't know if the output is plagiarism or not, so you'd just doubt it always and never use it.
No. It”s still very helpful. However you can not blindly take whatever it produces and publish it. Sometimes it hallucinates. Sometimes it draws weird looking hands. Sometimes it generates copyrighted materials. Check the work it produces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How? The restrictions on selling images of Mickey Mouse exist regarless of if they were created with or without AI assistance. Scale. GenAI automates creation of things that are derived from but strictly aren't the same as the original content; as it's (currently) not possible to automate the detection of derivative works (which is something copyright is supposed to be about), this means actual humans have to look…
I feel this is true for the internet . I do not find scale being a valid defensive aspect for copyright here. For that matter, Photoshop has made art creation so easy, that we dont need GenAI to be swiming in more copyright infringement than we know what to do with. There is absurd amounts of content being created, no human will ever be able to see it all. Copyright will continue to work - if someone creates a rip of…
Arm those million fans with GenAI instead of pen and paper and MS Paint, and it gets more extreme.
But I disagree WRT Photoshop; that takes much more effort to get anything close to what GenAI can do, and (sans piracy) is too expensive for amateurs. Even the cheaper alternatives take a lot of effort to get passable results that take tens of seconds with GenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at a copyrighted image posted by an author is not infringement. Printing that image onto a shirt and selling it is infringement. That’s what OpenAI is doing.
But OpenAI is not selling the rights to any images, or are they? When I pay for Dall-E, does the contract give me any rights for a work? If not then there is no issue.
In the terms of this service they explicitly reassign rights of the output to the user. So implicitly they believe they own the rights and are legally able to reassign them to you, a user of their service.
In my view they do not own those rights originally and thus are unable to resign them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the fair use clause he's using is about giving commentary. The reason the tool is problematic is because derivative works are also copyrighted. LLMs aren't adding value to their output or using creative functionality. That are smashing multiple works together to produce a response. And, many of them are selling the output which is doubly problematic. Consider this, if I sell a book about gandolf and Dumbledor…
But does the word processor you used to write your Dumbledore/Gandalf fanfic hold liability for being sued because it enabled your misuse? Then neither should Dall-E hold liability because it enabled you to produce an illustration for that book. It is you—the person who tries to sell your derivative work, who holds liability, and not the tools you used to produce it.
Everybody just buying into the corporate narrative that anyone can actually own these sorts of things. Who truly owns the tales of Snow White and Cinderella? These stories didn't originate with Disney; they are part of a rich tapestry of folklore passed down through generations. Disney's success was partly built on adapting these existing narratives, which were once shared and reshaped by communities over centuries.…
So, it’s not actually a corporate narrative, it’s actually the law that the narrative stems from, right or wrong. Maybe corporations had a huge role in shaping the law (I’d note copyright benefits individuals as well, though), but it is not mere propaganda or shaping of a shared reality through corporate narrative. It’s enforced by the guys with the guns and jails, as arbitrated by a judge.
It absolutely must be about the technicalities of the law as it’s at the basis a legal issue. By hand waving it away and claiming the social narrative is the right discussion you ignore the material consequences and reality in favor of a fantasy. We absolutely should -also- discuss the stifling nature of copyright and intellectual property, but you can’t ignore what’s actually happening here at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are not machines. The argument that procedural text and image generators are similar to us is ridiculous. The issue is not whether people can generate images. The issue is ai companies stealing content and reselling it. That needs to stop.
> The argument that procedural text and image generators are similar to us is ridiculous. Agreed. The amount of endless whataboutisms AI proponents have to continuously invent around comparing humans and AI machines as having 'similar' characteristics to justify mass copyright violation is just absolutely laughable. > The issue is ai companies stealing content and reselling it. The key point here is the 'reselling' p…
Or, gasp, they are LLMs themselves.
Did ClosedAi (OpenAi) ever confirm or deny that they trained their models on copyrighted materials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel this is true for the internet . I do not find scale being a valid defensive aspect for copyright here. For that matter, Photoshop has made art creation so easy, that we dont need GenAI to be swiming in more copyright infringement than we know what to do with. There is absurd amounts of content being created, no human will ever be able to see it all. Copyright will continue to work - if someone creates a rip of…
The internet is a lesser example, but yes, it is also true for a million fans posting their own fan art. Arm those million fans with GenAI instead of pen and paper and MS Paint, and it gets more extreme. But I disagree WRT Photoshop; that takes much more effort to get anything close to what GenAI can do, and (sans piracy) is too expensive for amateurs. Even the cheaper alternatives take a lot of effort to get passabl…
"More extreme" is not an explanation of how the change in scale matters here.
Indeed, what I would argue is there is no fundamental change in scale. Digital reproduction plus the internet already caused the change in scale. We already had the capacity for anyone to produce fan art and publish it or reproduce existing work and publish that. What has changed is not a question on quantity, but one of quality. Those fan artists now have tools so thay even the lower skilled artists can produce higher quality work.
Indeed, this is the real threat to artists from generative AI. Narrowing that skill gap is understandably threatening to those who make money with their artistic skills. I think trying to restrict the development of this technology is a losing battle. I think trying to do so by expanding the powers granted by copyright will exentuate the existing flaws with our modern copyright laws.
Instead, I'd prefer to solve that problem by reducing the strength of copyright. If we make AI generated or derived works un-copyrightable than companies that want to own copyright on their content will have to keep paying people to create it.
I might be a bit idealistic, but I've always believed that the core purpose of art and publishing should be to influence culture and society, not just to make a heap of money. That's why I feel original work needs its protection, but it should enter the public domain much sooner to fuel creativity and inspiration. We should be thinking in terms of a few years for this transition, not decades.
So what do you suggest artists have for dinner.
Not all my effort turned into dinners tho. And some types of work once paid for dinners but can't any more.
My #4 son is an artist/content creator. He eats based on what his non-art employment will buy. Perhaps one day people will find his art desirable and he could eat from that. It'll be a case where he worked long and hard on a project, was paid once for it and that's it for that.
That's what reality looks like for all artists - excepting a small percentage.
All that said, I really wouldn't want his dinner to come at the expense of everyone else being restrained by massive system of corrupt, draconian law that rigidly controls everyone's behavior for 150 years, primarily benefits wealthy and powerful rent-seeking corporations, is readily applied to censorship and is more likely to knee-cap other artists than to provide them anything like a living wage.
That seems indistinguishable from evil.