AI PBs
-
Once again, this comparison is not equitable: in this case, the printer would have been programmed with the instructions for how to make five dollar bills. Like, not “you have to go find your money laundering tips elsewhere,” it’s specifically baked in.
And I guarantee that if you tried to sell a printer that could convincingly replicate $5 bills at the push of a button, you’d have treasury agents shutting you down in short order. But that has nothing to do with copyright.
That aside, we’re not talking about a dumb tool like a pencil or even a 2D or 3D printer that just blindly prints the lines/pixels/plastic you tell it. We’re talking about an “intelligent” (per their branding) tool that has an algorithm and data inside that specifically enable it to create unauthorized derivative works of copyrighted/trademarked works. ETA: If they had trained only on public domain works, it wouldn’t be able to do that. If they had licensed the content they trained on, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s all about the design of the tool.
-
We’re talking about an “intelligent” … tool
That’s where you’re wrong. It isn’t intelligence. That’s why I linked the video that explains how A.I. works. It is no more intelligent or capable of free will than any pocket calculator. It’s a very complex series of pass or fail checks that have become robust enough to give the appearance of intelligence but it has no will, no motivation, no real intelligence. That’s why image generation can have such freaky errors. It has no actual concept of what body parts are attached where or what any of the context of your prompts mean. It’s just taking a bunch of random noise and reducing that noise in a pattern which is likely to be similar to other patterns that it has seen before.
It’s not aware at all, at least, not yet. Once we get true A.I. then you can start making the arguments you are making now with some legitimacy but with the way it functions right now, it’s still just a very fancy pencil.
-
I say this in the way of an American Southerner; bless your heart.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
We’re talking about an “intelligent” … tool
That’s where you’re wrong. It isn’t intelligence. That’s why I linked the video that explains how A.I. works. It is no more intelligent or capable of free will than any pocket calculator. It’s a very complex series of pass or fail checks that have become robust enough to give the appearance of intelligence but it has no will, no motivation, no real intelligence. That’s why image generation can have such freaky errors. It has no actual concept of what body parts are attached where or what any of the context of your prompts mean. It’s just taking a bunch of random noise and reducing that noise in a pattern which is likely to be similar to other patterns that it has seen before.
It’s not aware at all, at least, not yet. Once we get true A.I. then you can start making the arguments you are making now with some legitimacy but with the way it functions right now, it’s still just a very fancy pencil.
This analogy only works if the pencil is made of stolen materials.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
Okay, let me rephrase that so I am more clear. It is the person writing the prompt that is doing the fraud not the computer making the image.
This sounds like it was copy/pasted from a ChatGPT response. I am sure some people have trouble grasping this, but it really is quite simple. Allow me to explain.
…
The Aristocrats
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
What an A.I. does is no different than what a human does.
Trying to appeal to our inner Trekkies won’t work. We gotta be out of capitalism and into post-scarity Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism for this argument to have a chance. Unfortunately, people keep pushing towards Dune, so Butlarian Jihad it is.
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
If every wanna-be writer/director can make his own full length films at home, that’s the end of their monopoly.
I know several film students who have done this with 0 AI.
If everyone can be an artist, that’s the end of the “fine art” monopoly.
There is an argument to be made about fine art being nothing buy an utter bullshit money laundering scheme. AI won’t fix that, it will just make it worse.
Lowering the skill floor and democratizing media means more competition for the established players and that has investors freaking out.
Which is why you can help overthrow these ebil monopolies for four easy payments for the lifetime service, or if you prefer there is the option for a monthly subscription model.
Anyways, you can’t democratize art. It’s not a thing to vote on whether it exists, it simply is. Not to get opinionated as a failed Tuba-oomp-pah-ing Music Ed major, but real art takes suffering and emotion and soul and dedication and sometimes talent but it plays a non-zero factor. People spend years developing their crafts and applying their own personal flourishes to things.
None of which any AI can even vaguely comprehend, because if it could you wouldn’t be able to ever convince it to make a hard right turn into fascism as it repeatedly can be seen doing.
You want AI to let people just jump ahead with no effort (I assure you, figuring out how to write a prompt is extremely low effort here)… it’s like you want someone with 0 practice in the kitchen to win the Great British Bake-off by describing to a robot how they want a cake to look and taste. It’s fucking ludicrous.
-
@RedRocket I see how you omitted the part of my quote where I said “per their branding” to clarify the air-quotes around intelligent, and specified that I was talking about the algorithm/data baked into the tool. I understand quite well how these tools work. I also understand copyright law. Your “it’s a dumb tool” argument holds little weight IMHO, legally or technically.
But even setting all that aside, I don’t even care if it’s fair use. It’s wrong to take somebody’s stuff, use it to make a product that makes you a zillion dollars—a product that wouldn’t work at all without their stuff—and give them nothing in return. It is exhausting and disheartening that this is even a debate.
-
This analogy only works if the pencil is made of stolen materials.
Again, it’s not “stealing” anything. Not any more than any person with a pair of eyes seeing an image. It learns what things are by breaking them down into a format that it can understand and reference later. That’s not stealing. There are no copies of images of Micky Mouse in the files used to run the A.I.
It’s just math and code. You are making this thing seem way more magical than it is.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
The pencils are powered and designed specifically to use Mickey Mouse’s image.
The same thing can be said about any human as well. If you see the mouse and have the talent to draw it, does that make you an evil criminal who was trained to destroy the profit margins of Disney?
It can’t be a crime to see things and learn from them. That’s just how reality works. What an A.I. does is no different than what a human does. If anything, it should be less culpable for fraud because it can not choose create images. A human must ask it to do so.
Again, I would like to point out that in any other industry this would be thrown out of court. If you sue Honda for making a car that drives faster one year than the model from the year before because drunk drivers might use it to drive drunk they would throw you out of court.
If you sued a bow and arrow company for making a more accurate compound bow because someone might use it to rob your bank, you would be laughed out of court.
There is no other industry where a tool can be held liable for the actions of the person using the tool. It’s inconceivable except in this one case because in this one case it scares the ever living shit out of corporations. They see A.I. as a direct threat to their market dominance.
If every wanna-be writer/director can make his own full length films at home, that’s the end of their monopoly. If everyone can be an artist, that’s the end of the “fine art” monopoly. Lowering the skill floor and democratizing media means more competition for the established players and that has investors freaking out. That’s the only reason this is even being given the time of day.
You just have such a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how and why people make art. It’s just fucking depressing.
Art is already democratized. Anyone can learn it. Anyone can practice it. And the people who are going to be the most dramatically, negatively impacted aren’t the big established corporations you think are monopolizing these spaces: it’s the individual artists who are just trying to make a modest living.
-
@Roz And I’ll tack on that when little Jenny Watercolor makes a painting, it doesn’t poison the entire city of Brownsville permanently.
-
@Roz Democratizing art is exactly what A.I. does.
I can’t draw worth a lick these days because my hands are shot but I can still make passable art for my hobbies because of A.I.
I can even run it locally. No corporation can control what I make.I mean, I get that you’re mad that the fact so many people can enter the market and fill it with content that your content is devalued but that’s just progress. You too could learn to use it and flood the market. Plus, because you have actual skill yours would end up looking better and sell more than the people with no actual training or skill.
It is a total pain in the ass to get A.I. to understand object positioning so all those prompt jockeys who can’t draw have to take hours and hours to do something you can do with a simple sketch fed into the A.I. engine because you understand perspective and how distance should change scale and line width on a work.
Plus you are overlooking the radical advancements in what you can do to your images using open source image to image A.I. like Flux Kontext.
Have a sketch you want to turn into a detailed digital drawing of a space ship on a strange alien planet? You can spend 6 hours doing that or you can have the A.I. do it in seconds. Want the ship to have rusted metal plating? You can spend an hour painting in tiny, detailed, rust patches or you can lightly sketch them in and have flux add more detail the rust. You can make art with coloured pencil which the A.I. will understand than translate over into any style of art you want.
You are looking at this as if it’s taking away from artists when it makes you magnitudes more productive. You just haven’t given it a chance.
-
You’re never going to convince each other of your arguments, you’re using different metrics and seem to care about different aspects of the subject. Anyone here who is liable to agree with either side already does.
You can keep shouting past each other if you wish, of course, but it does seem a touch senseless. We should be arguing about vampire sex.
-
We should be arguing about vampire sex.
I’ve always found the idea of vampire sex silly. Who wants to bang a corpse and also, why would the vampire want to bang a sweaty, stinky, meat-sack that smells like day-old urine and too many chemicals? It’s bad enough you have to eat them to stay alive-ish, why would you want to rub your bits against them? It’s just gross!
-
When I was younger, I was promised that the machines would do the work so I could do the painting and the writing and the music.
The machines are doing the painting and the writing and the music, now, and they can only do it because someone fed them a whole load of things that lots of people made, for free. Perhaps I have the right to be a little pissed off about this.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
Have a sketch you want to turn into a detailed digital drawing of a space ship on a strange alien planet? You can spend 6 hours doing that or you can have the A.I. do it in seconds.Want the ship to have rusted metal plating? You can spend an hour painting in tiny, detailed, rust patches or you can lightly sketch them in and have flux add more detail the rust. You can make art with coloured pencil which the A.I. will understand than translate over into any style of art you want.
do you understand that artists…like doing art?? like that’s the thing – when you use generative AI, you’re not making art; you’re generating images.
artists like making art. the point of technology, like @Evilgrayson said, was to be able to make mundane stuff in life easier so that they’d have more time to make art. what are we making more time for now, if technology is making the art?
you’re literally skipping over the good part. you’re skipping over the act of creation.
but, of course, you don’t care about that. you don’t care about art, and you don’t care about artists, despite the fact that your life is probably full of enrichment from artists of all different types. you don’t respect the work of the countless people who make life bearable and beautiful.
so yeah, i’m done.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
You are looking at this as if it’s taking away from artists when it makes you magnitudes more productive.
As a reminder of what professional artists have actually said for themselves:
More than half of respondents (57%) do not consider their area of creative work to be a sustainable career, and 72% believe that their work opportunities as a creator have been negatively impacted by generative AI. While 14% thought that there had been an increase in their earnings which they could attribute to the developments of generative AI technologies, 86% said that such developments had caused a decrease in their earnings. When it comes to feelings about how generative AI might impact creators, 11% are more optimistic than a year ago, 20% are neutral, but 69% are more pessimistic.
-
@Evilgrayson I agree with you 100% on the morals. It’s just another way for the rich to take every last opportunity from the rest of us, but until we learn a better way than capitalism, this is what it we have to work with so I’m adapting because I want my crumb of the pie to be big enough to live on.
-
Yes, A.I. is making it next to impossible to make a living as an artist, but it’s doing that to a lot of industry and it’s only going to get exponentially worse until it gets better, but here’s the thing, it will get better.
One of the very core concepts of capitalism is that you have to have a consumer base with money to buy the shit your robots are making.
It’s a race to the bottom, I agree. But when we reach that bottom there will be no choice but to implement some kind of universal income where people will be paid simply to exist because if they are not there will be no consumers left to buy anything. Also there will be no politicians left because we will have murdered them all.
When we talked about the promise of AI freeing us from menial labor, this is what that looks like. This is a stepping stone towards that future.
It’s going to be a painful and probably violent next few steps because capitalism is very slow to adapt and people who have resources do not want to give up anything to the people who have not. But it will change.
Even the smartest economists in the world have warned that we need to get ahead of it and start implementing some kind of new system before the total collapse of capitalism happens.
You look at this as greedy people taking away your opportunity to make a living off of doing the things that you want, but I see this as a greedy people dooming themselves to the destruction of the very capitalism that they bade their entire value as a human being on.
Just try and hold on, try to adapt during the transition and let them destroy themselves.There is an old Russian proverb, “When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt them. It is rude.”
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
There is an old Russian proverb, “When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt them. It is rude.”
ETA: Though undoubtedly the underlying idea is as old as people.
-
@Pavel
He stole it from Russia. Trust me, all wisdom comes from Russia. My Babushka would not lie to me. -
Why do I feel like I am reading a homework assignment from doomer accelerationist kindergarten
