641–650 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Archeologists don't actually wear fedora hats. And the stereotypical meme "archeologist hat" is the pith helmet.
Here, I asked ChatGPT to generate an image using a pith helmet for you: https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzmab6hfxxtrt3atd0jgpg7 You can just ask for whatever changes you want.
Yes, as long as what you're asking for is Indiana Jones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones, he creates a perfect copy and I hang it on my fridge. Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or other) laws? It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the copyrighted IP.
I think framing this as "IP theft" is a mistake. Nobody can prevent you from drawing a photo realistic picture of Indy, or taking a photo of him from the internet and hanging it on your fridge. Or asking a friend to do it for you. And let's be honest -- because nobody is looking -- said friend could even charge you a modest sum to draw a realistic picture of Indy for you to hang on your fridge; yes, it's "illegal" bu…
Indy, with its logo, whiplash, and hat, is a trademark from Disney. I don't know the specific stuff; but if you sell a t-shirt with Indiana Jones, or you put the logo there... you might be sued due to trademark violation.
If you make copies of anything developed, sold, or licensed by Disney (movies, comics, books, etc) you'll have a copyright violation.
The issue we have with AI and LLM is that: - The models compress information and can make a lot of copies of it very cheaply. - Artist wages are quite low. Higher that what you'd pay OpenAI, but not enough to make a living even unless you're hired by a big company (like Marvel or DC) and they give you regular work ($100-120 for a cover, $50-80/page interior work. One page needs about one day to draw.) - AI used a lot of images from the internet to train models. Most of them were pirated. - And, of course, it is replacing low-paying jobs for artist.
Also, do not forget it might make verbatim copies of copyrighted art if the model just memorized the picture / text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. But massive changes in scale or leverage can undermine this type of principled stand. One death is a murder; 100k deaths is a war or a pandemic. One piece of chewing gum on the ground will get you a caning in Singapore; when everyone does it, that's NYC. Up until now, one had to have some level of graphical or artistic skills to do this, but not anymore. Again, I agree that it attaches to the human...but we…
> One piece of chewing gum on the ground will get you a caning in Singapore This is not true, by the way. You will be fined for littering; or, if you are a repeat offender, be sentenced to cleaning public areas while wearing an offensively bright-coloured uniform (so that everyone can see that you are being punished). Source: https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/nea-increases-v... But no, you won't be caned f…
FWIW I’ve been to Singapore and had a great time, but I was careful to follow the many rules and signs. I especially liked the sign on the bus forbidding the opening of a durian fruit.
Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad. Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "rando…
Theft from whom and how? Are you telling me that our culture should be deprived of the idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset? Indiana Jones is 44 years old. When are we allowed to remix, recreate and expand on this like humanity has done since humans first started sitting down next to a fire and telling stories? edit: this reminds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theft from whom and how? Are you telling me that our culture should be deprived of the idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset? Indiana Jones is 44 years old. When are we allowed to remix, recreate and expand on this like humanity has done since humans first started sitting down next to a fire and telling stories? edit: this reminds…
"idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset" is very different from the almost exact image of Indiana Jones.
Not sure if anyone is interested in this story, but I remember at the height of the PokemonGo craze I noticed there were no shirts for the different factions in the game, cant rememebr what they were called but something like Teamread or something. I setup an online shop to just to sell a red shirt with the word on it. The next day my whole shop was taken offline for potential copyright infringement. What I found sur…
I think the problem there was being dependent on someone who is a complete pushover, doesn't bother to check for false positives and can kill your business with a single thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I’m sure you’re right for individual authors who are driven by a creative spark, but for, say, movies made by large studios, the length of copyright is directly tied to the value of the movie as an asset. If that asset generates revenue for 120 years, then it’s slig…
> If that asset generates revenue for 120 years, then it’s slightly more valuable than an asset that generates revenue for 119 years, and considerably more valuable than an asset that generates revenue for 20 years. Not so, because of net present value. The return from investing in normal stocks is ~10%/year, which is to say ~670% over 20 years, because of compounding interest. Another way of saying this is that $1 i…
50 years ago, a movie ticket was 0.50 cents in revenue. Today, it’s $25. That’s a 50x increase… a dollar in 50 years might be worth $0.02 today, but a movie ticket in 50 years is worth about a movie ticket today.
Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad. Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "rando…
If you describe an Indiana Jones character, but no sex, 50/50 via internal call to rand() that it outputs a woman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new. How could you possibly know this? Is this falsifiable? Is there anything we could ask it to draw where you wouldn't just claim it must be copying some image in its training data?
Novelty in one medium arises from novelty in others, shifts to the external environment. We got brass bands with brass instruments, synth music from synths. We know therefore, necessarily, that they can be nothing novel from an LLM -- it has no live access to novel developments in the broader environment. If synths were invented after its training, it could never produce synth music (and so on). The claim here is tri…
> Everything is simply a blend of prior work.
I generally consider these two to be the same thing. If novelty is based on something else, then it's highly derivative and its novelty is very questionable.
A quantum random number generator is far more novel than the average human artist.
> have an LLM produce content on developments which had yet to take place at the time of its training. It obviously cannot do this.
Put someone in jail for the last 15 years, and ask them to make a smartphone. They obviously cannot do it either.