No. Fuck that. I don't consent to my art or face being used to train AI. This is not about intellectual property, I feel my privacy violated and my efforts shat on.
Unless you have been locked in a sensory deprivation tank for your whole life, and have independently developed the English language, you too have learned from other people's content.
Well my knowledge can't be used as a tool of surveillance by the government and the corporations and I have my own feelings intent and everything in between. AI is artifical inteligence, Ai is not an artificial person. AI doesn't have thoughts, feelings or ideals. AI is a tool, an empty shell that is used to justify stealing data and survelience.
This very comment is a resource that government and corporations can use for surveillance and training.
AI doesn't have thoughts? We don't even know what a thought is.
We may not know what comprises A thought, but I think we know it's not matrix math. Which is basically all an LLM is
Hard disagree, the neural connections in the brain can be modeled with matrix math as well. Sure some people will be uncomfortable with that notion, especially if they believe in spiritual stuff outside physical reality. But if you're the type that thinks consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from our underlying biology then matrix math is a reasonable approach to representing states of our mind and what we call thoughts.
Yet we live in a world where people will profit from the work and creativity of others without paying any of it back to the creator. Creating something is work, and we don't live in a post-scarcity communist utopia. The issue is the "little guy" always getting fucked over in a system that's pay-to-play.
Donating effort to the greater good of society is commendable, but people also deserve to be compensated for their work. Devaluing the labor of small creators is scummy.
I'm working on a tabletop setting inspired by the media I consumed. If I choose to sell it, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay royalties to the publishers of every piece of media that inspired me.
If you were a robot that never needed to eat or sleep and could generate 10,000 tabletop RPGs an hour with little to no creative input then I might be worried about whether or not those media creators were compensated.
The efficiency something can be created with should have no bearing on whether someone gets paid royalties.
It absolutely should, especially when the "creator" is not a person. AI is not "inspired" by training data, and any comparisons to human artists being inspired by things they are exposed to are made out of ignorance of both the artistic process and how AI generates images and text.
It's impossible to make any comparison between how AI and how humans make decisions without understanding the nature of consciousness. Simply understanding how AI works isn't enough.
Are you seriously suggesting that human creativity works by learning to reduce the amount of random noise they output by mapping words to patterns?
Is that what they suggested? Or are you just wanting to be mad about something?
Fair, my point was: how is it important that we understand how consciousness works to see that the way consciousness creates Art is not very comparable to a machine recognizing patterns?
The commentor above has compared inspiration to the way AI Companies are using the labor of millions of artists for free. In this context I assume this is what they were hinting at when responding to "AI is not being inspired" with "we don't know how consciousness works"
Because one is a black box that very well may just be a much more advanced version of what current AI does. We don't know yet. It's possible that with the training of trillions of trillions of moments of experience a person has that an AI may be comparable.
I mean, the likelihood is basically zero, but it's impossible to prove the negative. At the end of the day, our brains are just messy turing machines with a lot of built in shortcuts. The only things that set us apart is how much more complicated they are, and how much more training data we provide it. Unless we can crack consciousness, it's very possible some day in the future we will build an incredibly rudimentary AGI without even realizing that it works the same way we do, scaled down. But without truly knowing how our own brain works fully, how can we begin to claim it does or doesn't work like something else?
None of which means it is impossible to determine whether or not an algorithm that couldn't exist without the work of countless artists should have the same IP rights as a human being making art (the answer is no).
When, not if, such a robot exists, do you imagine we'll pay everyone who'd ever published a roleplaying game? Like a basic income exclusively for people who did art before The Training?
Or should the people who want things that couldn't exist without magic content engines be denied, to protect some prior business model? Bear in mind this is the literal Luddite position. Weavers smashed looms. Centuries later, how much fabric in your life do you take for granted, thanks to that machinery?
'We have to stop this labor-saving technology because of capitalism' is a boneheaded way to deal with any conflict between labor-saving technology... and capitalism.
I know this is shocking to people who have never picked up a brush or written anything other than internet arguments after the state stopped mandating they do so when they graduated high school, but you can just create shit without AI. Literal children can do it.
And there is no such thing as something that “couldn’t exist” without the content stealing algorithm. There is nothing it can create that humans can’t, but humans can create things it can’t.
There’s also something hilarious about the idea that the real drag on the artistic process was the creating art part. God almighty, I’d rather be a Luddite than a Philistine.
Fuck off.
If that sounds needlessly blunt, no, it's far kinder than your vile opening insult, which you can't even keep straight - immediately noting that everyone, even children, has done an art at some point.
So maybe this discussion of wild new technology versus 17th-century law and the grindstone of capitalism isn't about individual moral failings of people who disagree with you.
Ooh, hit close to home to point out AI guzzlers are talentless hacks? Take a nap bro, you seem to need it.
Those 10000 tabletop RPGs will almost certainly be completely worthless on their own, but might contain some novel ideas. Until a human comes by and scours it for ideas and combines it. It could very well be that in the same time it could only create 1 coherent tabletop RPG idea.
Should be mentioned though, AIs don't run for free either, they cost quite a lot of electricity and require expensive hardware.
Then don't post your art or face publicly, I agree with you if it's obtained through malicious ways, but if you post it publicly than expect it to be used publicly
If you post your art publicly why should it be legal for Amazon to take it and sell it? You are deluding yourself if you believe AI having a get out of jail free card on IP infringement won't be just one more source of exploitation for corporations.
Taking it and selling it is obviously not legal, but taking it and using it for training data is a whole different thing.
Once a model has been trained the original data isn't used for shit, the output the model generates isn't your artwork anymore it isn't really anybody's.
Sure, with some careful prompts you can get the model to output something in your style fairly closely, but the outputting image isn't yours. It's whatever the model conjured up based on the prompt in your style. The resulting image is still original of the model
It's akin to someone downloading your art, tracing it over and over again till they learn the style and then going off to draw non-traced original art just in your style
"You don't understand, it's not infringement because we put it in a blender first" is why AI "art" keeps taking Ls in court.
A court saying "nobody owns this" is closer to the blender argument than the ripoff argument.
Care to point to those Ls in court? Because as far as I'm aware they are mostly still ongoing and no legal consensus has been established.
It's also a bit disingenuous to boil his argument down to what you did, as that's obviously not what he said. You would most likely agree that a human would produce transformative works even when basing most of their knowledge on that of another (such as tracing).
Ideas are not copyrightable, and neither are styles. You could use that understanding of another's work to create forgeries of their work, but hence why there exist protections against forgeries. But just making something in the style of another does not constitute infringement.
"U.S. District Judge William Orrick said during a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday that he was inclined to dismiss most of a lawsuit brought by a group of artists against generative artificial intelligence companies, though he would allow them to file a new complaint."
"The judge also said the artists were unlikely to succeed on their claim that images generated by the systems based on text prompts using their names violated their copyrights.
"I don't think the claim regarding output images is plausible at the moment, because there's no substantial similarity" between images created by the artists and the AI systems, Orrick said."
Hard to call that an L, so I'm eagerly awaiting them.
Biggest L: that shit ain’t copyrightable. A doodle I fart out on a sticky pad has more legal protection.
That's true, but the reason behind that is reasonable. There has been no human intervention, and so like photos taken by animals, they hold no copyright.
But that's not what you should be doing anyways, a tool must be used as part of a process, not as *the process*.
No. Fuck that. I don't consent to my art or face being used to train AI. This is not about intellectual property, I feel my privacy violated and my efforts shat on.
Unless you have been locked in a sensory deprivation tank for your whole life, and have independently developed the English language, you too have learned from other people's content.
Well my knowledge can't be used as a tool of surveillance by the government and the corporations and I have my own feelings intent and everything in between. AI is artifical inteligence, Ai is not an artificial person. AI doesn't have thoughts, feelings or ideals. AI is a tool, an empty shell that is used to justify stealing data and survelience.
This very comment is a resource that government and corporations can use for surveillance and training.
AI doesn't have thoughts? We don't even know what a thought is.
We may not know what comprises A thought, but I think we know it's not matrix math. Which is basically all an LLM is
Hard disagree, the neural connections in the brain can be modeled with matrix math as well. Sure some people will be uncomfortable with that notion, especially if they believe in spiritual stuff outside physical reality. But if you're the type that thinks consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from our underlying biology then matrix math is a reasonable approach to representing states of our mind and what we call thoughts.
Yet we live in a world where people will profit from the work and creativity of others without paying any of it back to the creator. Creating something is work, and we don't live in a post-scarcity communist utopia. The issue is the "little guy" always getting fucked over in a system that's pay-to-play.
Donating effort to the greater good of society is commendable, but people also deserve to be compensated for their work. Devaluing the labor of small creators is scummy.
I'm working on a tabletop setting inspired by the media I consumed. If I choose to sell it, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay royalties to the publishers of every piece of media that inspired me.
If you were a robot that never needed to eat or sleep and could generate 10,000 tabletop RPGs an hour with little to no creative input then I might be worried about whether or not those media creators were compensated.
The efficiency something can be created with should have no bearing on whether someone gets paid royalties.
It absolutely should, especially when the "creator" is not a person. AI is not "inspired" by training data, and any comparisons to human artists being inspired by things they are exposed to are made out of ignorance of both the artistic process and how AI generates images and text.
It's impossible to make any comparison between how AI and how humans make decisions without understanding the nature of consciousness. Simply understanding how AI works isn't enough.
Are you seriously suggesting that human creativity works by learning to reduce the amount of random noise they output by mapping words to patterns?
Is that what they suggested? Or are you just wanting to be mad about something?
Fair, my point was: how is it important that we understand how consciousness works to see that the way consciousness creates Art is not very comparable to a machine recognizing patterns?
The commentor above has compared inspiration to the way AI Companies are using the labor of millions of artists for free. In this context I assume this is what they were hinting at when responding to "AI is not being inspired" with "we don't know how consciousness works"
Because one is a black box that very well may just be a much more advanced version of what current AI does. We don't know yet. It's possible that with the training of trillions of trillions of moments of experience a person has that an AI may be comparable.
I mean, the likelihood is basically zero, but it's impossible to prove the negative. At the end of the day, our brains are just messy turing machines with a lot of built in shortcuts. The only things that set us apart is how much more complicated they are, and how much more training data we provide it. Unless we can crack consciousness, it's very possible some day in the future we will build an incredibly rudimentary AGI without even realizing that it works the same way we do, scaled down. But without truly knowing how our own brain works fully, how can we begin to claim it does or doesn't work like something else?
None of which means it is impossible to determine whether or not an algorithm that couldn't exist without the work of countless artists should have the same IP rights as a human being making art (the answer is no).
When, not if, such a robot exists, do you imagine we'll pay everyone who'd ever published a roleplaying game? Like a basic income exclusively for people who did art before The Training?
Or should the people who want things that couldn't exist without magic content engines be denied, to protect some prior business model? Bear in mind this is the literal Luddite position. Weavers smashed looms. Centuries later, how much fabric in your life do you take for granted, thanks to that machinery?
'We have to stop this labor-saving technology because of capitalism' is a boneheaded way to deal with any conflict between labor-saving technology... and capitalism.
I know this is shocking to people who have never picked up a brush or written anything other than internet arguments after the state stopped mandating they do so when they graduated high school, but you can just create shit without AI. Literal children can do it.
And there is no such thing as something that “couldn’t exist” without the content stealing algorithm. There is nothing it can create that humans can’t, but humans can create things it can’t.
There’s also something hilarious about the idea that the real drag on the artistic process was the creating art part. God almighty, I’d rather be a Luddite than a Philistine.
Fuck off.
If that sounds needlessly blunt, no, it's far kinder than your vile opening insult, which you can't even keep straight - immediately noting that everyone, even children, has done an art at some point.
So maybe this discussion of wild new technology versus 17th-century law and the grindstone of capitalism isn't about individual moral failings of people who disagree with you.
Ooh, hit close to home to point out AI guzzlers are talentless hacks? Take a nap bro, you seem to need it.
Those 10000 tabletop RPGs will almost certainly be completely worthless on their own, but might contain some novel ideas. Until a human comes by and scours it for ideas and combines it. It could very well be that in the same time it could only create 1 coherent tabletop RPG idea.
Should be mentioned though, AIs don't run for free either, they cost quite a lot of electricity and require expensive hardware.
what a shitty argument. AI isn't people
Then don't post your art or face publicly, I agree with you if it's obtained through malicious ways, but if you post it publicly than expect it to be used publicly
If you post your art publicly why should it be legal for Amazon to take it and sell it? You are deluding yourself if you believe AI having a get out of jail free card on IP infringement won't be just one more source of exploitation for corporations.
Taking it and selling it is obviously not legal, but taking it and using it for training data is a whole different thing.
Once a model has been trained the original data isn't used for shit, the output the model generates isn't your artwork anymore it isn't really anybody's.
Sure, with some careful prompts you can get the model to output something in your style fairly closely, but the outputting image isn't yours. It's whatever the model conjured up based on the prompt in your style. The resulting image is still original of the model
It's akin to someone downloading your art, tracing it over and over again till they learn the style and then going off to draw non-traced original art just in your style
"You don't understand, it's not infringement because we put it in a blender first" is why AI "art" keeps taking Ls in court.
A court saying "nobody owns this" is closer to the blender argument than the ripoff argument.
Care to point to those Ls in court? Because as far as I'm aware they are mostly still ongoing and no legal consensus has been established.
It's also a bit disingenuous to boil his argument down to what you did, as that's obviously not what he said. You would most likely agree that a human would produce transformative works even when basing most of their knowledge on that of another (such as tracing).
Ideas are not copyrightable, and neither are styles. You could use that understanding of another's work to create forgeries of their work, but hence why there exist protections against forgeries. But just making something in the style of another does not constitute infringement.
EDIT:
This was pretty much the only update on a currently running lawsuit I could find: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-judge-finds-flaws-artists-lawsuit-against-ai-companies-2023-07-19/
Hard to call that an L, so I'm eagerly awaiting them.
Biggest L: that shit ain’t copyrightable. A doodle I fart out on a sticky pad has more legal protection.
That's true, but the reason behind that is reasonable. There has been no human intervention, and so like photos taken by animals, they hold no copyright. But that's not what you should be doing anyways, a tool must be used as part of a process, not as *the process*.