|
goferchan posted:As an AI language model, its understanding of horses is based on the textual data and patterns it has been trained on. It does not possess personal experiences, emotions, or a physical presence, so its understanding is limited to the information it has been exposed to during its training. This is true but also the same could be said about a not negligible amount of humans when it comes to horses.
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
chatpgt-ed again
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 09:38
|
|
|
Not 'probably' there's some line where it's copyrightable, we already know there is in fact a line where it's copywritable because it's already established to be somewhere below 'arrangement into the panels of a comic book,' it's just the exact place of the line that's in dispute.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
By my understanding LAION only ever itself contained a record of what the images were and where they were stored, not a copy of any of the individual images themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Hashy posted:This supposes that an ad featuring a model that doesn't exist that was never really photographed and that is turned algorithmically into a trending design template by an AI isn't dramatically worse to look at than one modeled, photographed, manipulated and designed by a human, and it definitely is. If anything I'd say the opposite as far as the "HOT gently caress NOW" animated gif porn ad goes.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
Also we need to note that a not-insignificant number of these datasets were also just like... licensed from flickr and artstation under a fully above the board license that people agreed to when they uploaded their pictures to the free filehosting.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:You put in IP, it makes IP very much like it without paying the author. That's all that really needs to be known for this poo poo as far as regulation goes, anything else is being drawn into the weeds. It doesn't though, not as a general case. It probably infringes on specific works overrepresented in the training damages, but otherwise you basically need to do enough work on the user's end you could just as easily infringe on work not in the training data at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Killhour is taking it mildly personally and Jaxyon is taking it super personally, actually
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
PenguinKnight posted:so, how is an artist who never wants to touch AI programs supposed to live, assuming we will never have anything like UBI implemented (in America, at least)? What is an artist supposed to do if their art is swept up in whatever gets used to train the models, and now anyone can freely take a style that took decades to perfect? I'm lost and honestly as a small time artist struggling to get anything out, I'm feeling pretty kicked while I'm down. An important thing to note here is "art getting swept up in training the model" is ultimately completely tangential. There already are models out there that all the training data in was fully licensed. Maximalist restrictions on the copyright decisions here will still not actually put any breaks on this train. For the other question, well, the answer is ultimately not too different to the same answer for an artist who never wanted to touch any of these digital art programs and continue working in nothing but watercolors/oils or something. Luck into getting popular enough that you still make it even with the more involved process for each work. This particular problem is not exactly a NEW problem even if the tech creating it is new.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 07:09
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Is it tangential though? It seems like there’s polemicists on both sides of the issue talking about some nebulous dystopian future where everyone is under the corporate thumb of either Disney or Google, and in between there’s artists who have the very current and real objection to the use of their copyrighted art in the most widespread and popular models. It is tangential in the sense that if people are going to be put out of jobs, they are going to be put out of jobs regardless of whether their own work is being used or not. The "models are using copyright art" and "artists may be put out of jobs" problems are functionally completely divorced from each other and addressing one doesn't do anything to address the other. That's what I mean when I say it's tangential.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 10:50
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:But is the best way to deal with the fact that people are conflating the two to just assert over and over that they’re unrelated, or would it be to actually fix the one we can fix so that it’s not an issue any more? Well, that's also the one where you've got the greatest argument going on about whether it is, in fact, an issue. Someone who doesn't think it's an issue does not, in fact, WANT to "fix" it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 12:04
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:If that’s so it seems even more important to focus on given that it the question that’s most likely to be legislated and litigated on on the near future! To be honest I don't think "focusing on it" will actually accomplish much meaningful. The courts will decide what the courts decide and the above-board models will work with whatever the new rules are, the ones that were just jumping around  websites in the first place will continue to do that, and the big corporate ones will probably toss a bunch of money at brute forcing enough content under the new legal standard to overcome any quality consequences. None of that will make any difference to whether anyone loses jobs.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 12:51
|
|
|
Tei posted:That would be a complicate way to copy my style, but is still copying the style. Ofuscating something might confuse robots and naive people, but it unimpress judges. Copying styles is legal.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:But using one's own material to compete with one is not. Fair use has limits, ones that have are likely to be interpreted more stringently after Warhol. That specific "Copying styles is legal" was going up against Tei's response to a bunch of things BESIDES actually using Tei's own material to make the machine copy Tei's style, because they still went "that's just a roundabout way to copy my style and the judge won't look kindly on that." In that case, no, that roundabout way to copy Tei's style would be 100% above the board legal, no matter where any other decision about AI art end up falling.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah, in terms of "serious" work, current-gen AI tools are mostly good for doing poo poo like being a very "smart" heal tool, and doing things like turning a rough sketch and a ritualistic description into detail. I think it's worth considering that probably most people in the world are doing actual doodling when they are doing traditional art anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
The actual thought experiment is straight up supposed to be biologically indistinguishable down the last atom, all the same neurons firing taking the same actions, it's frankly a very stupid thought experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I don't see how information is being lost in Discord any worse than it being lost in MIRC which wasn't indexed either. If you wanted the latest info years ago you would join a chat just like now, except you'd probably get called gamer words for your trouble because lol MIRC nerds. the irc people were a level of Online above even the regular Online people by the time i was on the internet and i'm not particularly young, the irc was probably associated with a forum where these things did actually get posted because the forum was busier than the irc itself, and then a few years after that was going into a wiki that at the time would've been fairly well supported by the community
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
There is definitely a fair argument that the commissioner of a piece is an artist at least in KIND if not necessarily in degree to a director. Certainly some directors are physically behind the camera, or really getting into the reeds in cutting room, but there are also very much some that are not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:I have difficultly in seeing how the commissioner of art is an artist. To use the analogy earlier of carpenters, pilots or programmers; I don't say I'm a carpenter because I have an idea that I should have some stairs in my house and pay a carpenter to build them. I'm not a pilot because I have the idea that I should get on a plane to fly somewhere and I'm not a programmer because I tell the programmer to make me a website. I had idea's that contributed to all the interactions with these professionals, but only with artists do we say that the commissioner is the artist. The commissioner of art is not a painter, in the same way that you are not a carpenter, but you know who else tells a carpenter where to put the stairs in houses, an architect. But "artist" does not mean "painter, specifically." That's why the argument exists for Artist Specifically, because Artist Specifically is a very very VERY big category. If directors can be artists, than at the very least the most involved of commissioners seem like they can be as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
KillHour posted:(and because I'm an LLM in this example, the process of asking where my keys are means I forgot something else as old tokens dropped out of scope So, "Wait, what did I even need my keys for in the first place" huh? Are we sure that humans AREN'T LLMs 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
"Being able to confidently state human hallucinations and AI-prediction-anomolies are fundamentally different should probably involve actually having a confident explanation of how human hallucinations work" is a pretty reasonable stance to me. So while the people asking you how human hallucinations might be trying to catch you in a gotcha, it's a very reasonable gotcha.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Seph posted:I think when the lay person hears AI what they really are imagining is AGI with all the traits you described. The current hype train is capitalizing on that misconception to upsell capabilities that have existed for years. I think when the lay person hears AI they imagine literally anything in the range of "thinky computer"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
I imagine you were doing stuff as a single session, so i'm moderately curious whether the answer would've been different if you hadn't asked the physics question first, since most of them use their own side of the conversation as part of the input prompt as well. It very well might not have been different, just curious
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
Probably all they needed to do was call it "zombie george carlin." Which is not to say that it's NOT fair use, just that I agree they're in the dreaded Judge Interpretation Zone, and doing something like calling it Zombie George Carlin would be a way to hopefully get it OUT of the Judge Interpretation Zone without any actual changes to content.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
SCheeseman posted:What's the difference between 'George Carlin resurrected using science fiction' versus 'George Carlin resurrected through paranormal shenanigans'? Is it because more people are willing to believe in science fiction? Honestly... pretty much, yeah. A core element here is convincing the judge you were making it obvious that It's A Bit, while simultaneously the George Carlin estate is trying to convince the judge that it was Not A Bit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 08:29
|
|