|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
LOL if you think the big corps are gonna stop at a mere subscription to access the AI. Be prepared for to pay perpetual licensing fees for any image you decide to download that comes out well enough to use.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think this fundamentally misidentifies the locus of the problem (or the "disruption", if that's how you want to think of it). If you're a textile worker in 19th Century Britain and you're suddenly out of a job because your work can now be done by a steam loom, it's not because the steam loom is exploitative. I agree with this reasoning. I developed my ideas on this sort of thing during the era of Napster where music labels were crying about the end of music and how artists would suffer. It was a self serving argument designed to protect their industry. Being able to share music online probably helped small artists by giving them new tools to get noticed by audiences -- without big labels. The current system of subscription aggregators results in plenty of profits for today at the top and peanuts for the little guy. Trying to halt or overly regulate a new technology is often a bad idea. The technology will come anyway, and the regulations usually just entrenches existing power. Changes like this can be valuable opportunities. As for the very real problem of people losing their livelihoods, then individuals themselves should be cushioned somehow. I'm not sure how to do this fairly. Sensible laws need to be passed on this issue. But asking an AI to generate an image in the style of an artist and then crying "theft!" when it does so shouldn't be the basis for regulation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
roomtone posted:There is still profit being generated from your art - the difference is, now instead of a % of the take, and related ways to support yourself, you get nothing, the tech companies take all of it including even the credit. It's could be the same with any creative format, if it's just allowed to happen. Somebody is still going to profit from human creativity, it's just going to become people who have nothing to do with the creativity. Yep. Always fun to watch the rentier class once again engage in outright theft to then turn around and offer to sell back the work they stole at a premium. That's the thing about every last one of these techbro 'disruption' schemes, they're all at the root an attempt at landlordism. The people running these content-generation AIs have no desire to produce art or literature. They simply want to make sure that they get a cut on the value of any that is produced. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 09:13 on May 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
Disney's board is mostly businesspeople and lawyers and a lot of their most profitable output are based on works taken from the public domain. They choose projects based on marketing potential, not artistic value. They've used their money and influence to control copyright law. Capitalism and it's twisted values aren't exclusively owned and expressed by tech bros, the status quo of the corporatization of art and copyright is already total mess and bolstering the grip of copyright is probably only going to create more problems. FWIW I don't like closed source proprietary AI generators either, but Disney (or more generally, multinational media corps) 'winning' kills the open projects just as much and only serves to entrench existing conglomerates by putting the technology near-exclusively in the hands of organizations already sitting on a mountain of IP. Your goals just lead to another monopoly and does little to nothing to prevent labour markets from being disrupted. Copyright infringement = stealing isn't an equivocation that was borne from a grassroots, artist driven place, but from marketing agencies under the employ of multinationals. It's kind of incredible that You Wouldn't Steal A Car seems to have actually worked. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 09:56 on May 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
People aren't moved by "You wouldn't steal a car", they're moved by "You wouldn't steal a livelihood"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yep. Always fun to watch the rentier class once again engage in outright theft to then turn around and offer to sell back the work they stole at a premium. SCheeseman posted:Copyright infringement = stealing isn't an equivocation that was borne from a grassroots, artist driven place, but from marketing agencies under the employ of multinationals. It's kind of incredible that You Wouldn't Steal A Car seems to have actually worked. Here's a post from Slashdot which I thought was interesting: 'Copyright is a *privilege* we as a society *give* to creators to encourage creativity. If we extend that privilege for more than a few years then it no longer encourages creativity but instead *stifles* new works based on the old. To benefit humanity, copyright terms must be cut to five years or shorter.'
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:People aren't moved by "You wouldn't steal a car", they're moved by "You wouldn't steal a livelihood" Not moved enough to get rid of the thing that has repeatedly caused the destruction of livelihoods every time another job gets automated or obsoleted, apparently. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 04:48 on May 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:An AI that has these two stories in its dataset has no understanding of the origins and prompting it to write a sci-fi story inspired by a hairy coconut in a damp basement will most likely just be about a coconut in a damp basement. Maybe on a spaceship. quote:Write a sci-fi story. The story must be written as if its author was inspired by the experience of finding a hairy coconut in a damp basement
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
Not at my computer to try but you can also in your prompt tell ChatGPT to never use the phrase hairy coconut or the word coconut, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
I think one of the difficulties it has is that there's not a lot of data in its training set like "Here's a story inspired by x: [story that never mentions x]." I found the same issue when I provided an example of the kind of thing I want, it would almost always lean way too hard on the example I gave it instead of coming up with new related things.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Here's a post from Slashdot which I thought was interesting: It in no way follows that it is then a social good to allow corporations, who are explicitly not people and thus cannot create, to violate copyright laws for profit while also exploiting said laws to attack creators.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:corporations, who are explicitly not people and thus cannot create You might be speaking from a personal values perspective, but as far as the law is concerned, I'm pretty sure this is explicitly not true.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It in no way follows that it is then a social good to allow corporations, who are explicitly not people and thus cannot create, to violate copyright laws for profit while also exploiting said laws to attack creators. Maybe in some other copyright regime this would make sense, but in the one we live in copyright exclusively belongs to the corporation creators work for and the money-men who buy them and not the creators themselves the vast majority of the time, often specifically so they can use those copyright laws to deprive the creators of the right to their work. (ZA/UM is a great recent example of this) Like, what you're describing here - that's the standard, the foundation of our copyright system. Any attempts to "strengthen copyright laws" under the current system are almost certainly going to make that worse. It's not like anyone is proposing that corps lose the ability to hold copyright in favour of giving it to creators.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Less Fat Luke posted:Not at my computer to try but you can also in your prompt tell ChatGPT to never use the phrase hairy coconut or the word coconut, etc. quote:Write a sci-fi story. The story must be written as if its author was inspired by the experience of finding a hairy coconut in a damp basement; the story must only be inspired to the author by feelings and sensation of that experience, and it should not use the words "hairy", "coconut", or "basement" in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Not moved enough to get rid of the thing that has repeatedly caused the destruction of livelihoods every time another job gets automated or obsoleted, apparently. My brother in Christ are you dragging people for being unable to destroy capitalism?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:My brother in Christ are you dragging people for being unable to destroy capitalism? I'm not expecting anyone to single handedly destroy capitalism, but what many are doing in the name of anti-AI advocacy is help support it and the systems it uses to consolidate control. Not that AI can't also be used for such a purpose, but copyright doesn't solve that, it makes it worse for everyone who doesn't hold onto a mountain of IP. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You might be speaking from a personal values perspective, but as far as the law is concerned, I'm pretty sure this is explicitly not true. From a legal perspective it remains true, outside of personhood in some technical standings. People create works for hire which are owned by the corporation, but the corporation itself, not being a human, is incapable of authorship. GlyphGryph posted:Maybe in some other copyright regime this would make sense, but in the one we live in copyright exclusively belongs to the corporation creators work for and the money-men who buy them and not the creators themselves the vast majority of the time, often specifically so they can use those copyright laws to deprive the creators of the right to their work. (ZA/UM is a great recent example of this) As said above, are you criticizing the existence of copyright because the creators have not destroyed capitalism yet? Creators own their work unless forced (mostly by financial coercion) to transfer that ownership either via 'work for hire' or outright IP sales. Or, as is common and the foundation of most LLM currently in use, by outright theft the creators lack the funds to successfully oppose in court because the rentier class has successfully won at capitalism and and amassed resources more surely than ever the old nobility did.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 09:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:From a legal perspective it remains true, outside of personhood in some technical standings. People create works for hire which are owned by the corporation, but the corporation itself, not being a human, is incapable of authorship. They can own the rights to distribution, which in practice is the only thing that matters. Authorship for many people is attribution and a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 11:18
|
|
|
Generative AI output not inheriting copyright is a bit of an anarchist option. Artists are pissed because their works can be learned from, IP conglomerates don't get their monopoly, tech bros get their tech but not exclusively as easy & legal knowledge transfer and the allowance of large open models make the tools available to the public for use locally. If you're anti-AI in the sense that you don't want it to exist at all, there is no pathway for this to happen. A technology that uses open source software based on publicly available research that runs on general computing hardware available to consumers has no chance of being stuffed back into a box. Not talking generative AI specifically, but machine learning in general, remembering that this all started from screwing around with an image recognition application. No one wants to talk about surveillance states in this thread though. So absent a way to stop it, I guess you use what you have, copyright. So they can't use yours and you can't use theirs, unless there's a transaction. The tech bros will throw away their old models and train new ones on public domain data, which will work but won't be as good as those who have access to their archives of the good poo poo and can train on both. Going it alone? gently caress you peasant. Stable Diffusion is illegal now. Pay a monthly fee for Adobe Firefly just like everyone else who wants a job. If it isn't DRMed and watermarked how can you prove you made it? SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 12:00 on May 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:As said above, are you criticizing the existence of copyright because the creators have not destroyed capitalism yet? No, and that's a stupid loving conclusion from reading what I wrote. It's got nothing to do with destroying capitalism. What I will criticize is the morons who want to make things worse, forever, for other artists and themselves and culture as a whole, in a desperate attempt to claw a couple more years of stability out of their own career in a scheme that's unlikely to even loving work. None of the proposals I've seen from artists angry about AI right now have any interest in the public good. All of them empower corporations at the expense of individual creators. None of them even meaningfully reduce the career risk posed by AI! It's all insanely dumb panic poo poo, and almost all of it seems to be based on a sense of entitlement and wounded pride than practical concerns for the well-being of the public or artistic community - the same sense of entitlement and wounded pride that has been used countless times in the past to convince artists to get on board with the nightmare copyright regime that already stands.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
AI will destroy capitalism by enabling a more efficient system of exploitation and resource redistribution, just like capitalism itself destroyed feudal systems of yore.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:So absent a way to stop it, I guess you use what you have, copyright. So they can't use yours and you can't use theirs, unless there's a transaction. The tech bros will throw away their old models and train new ones on public domain data, which will work but won't be as good as those who have access to their archives of the good poo poo and can train on both. There's also the slightly awkward issue that it wouldn't really protect art styles. Policing individuals or corporations in other nations and proving whether your stuff was in their dataset will be well beyond the ability of individual artists but they will face competitiion from them all the same. Domestic corporations could get around it too though. How much does a graphics artist in India cost per day? Could Adobe or Microsoft afford to hire 100 for a year and just have them churn out art "in the style of"? That's a one time expense and now your product has the unique feature that it can generate art in 5-10-20 distinct styles. And no copyright was violated so it's certified infringement free! I would be ok with limiting the use of copyrighted materials in training sets. I think the legal argument is a little awkward and tenuous but sure. I just don't think it will really change anything.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Domestic corporations could get around it too though. How much does a graphics artist in India cost per day? Could Adobe or Microsoft afford to hire 100 for a year and just have them churn out art "in the style of"? That's a one time expense and now your product has the unique feature that it can generate art in 5-10-20 distinct styles. And no copyright was violated so it's certified infringement free! Adobe Firefly already uses public domain and licensed stock art as it's training set.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:I would be ok with limiting the use of copyrighted materials in training sets. I think the legal argument is a little awkward and tenuous but sure. I just don't think it will really change anything. It will make it so individual artists don't have access to the same quality of tools the corps do, that's something.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Another AI showing human reasoning article, this time in the times. Based on a Microsoft paper. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/microsoft-ai-human-reasoning.html Same as before though: “They literally acknowledge in their paper’s introduction that their approach is subjective and informal and may not satisfy the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation.”
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Another AI showing human reasoning article, this time in the times. Based on a Microsoft paper. Also a new funny Bard thing just dropped: https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1657396491676164096
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Rogue AI Goddess posted:AI will destroy capitalism by enabling a more efficient system of exploitation and resource redistribution, just like capitalism itself destroyed feudal systems of yore. And even if you want to construct an idiosyncratic definition of capitalism that encompasses what's traditionally called mercantilism it isn't like mercantilism killed feudal agrarianism either...mediaeval feudalism largely collapsed under a number of crises which it was unable to handle, generally referred to as the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages: the famine of the early 14th Century; the Black Death; the ending of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the start of the Little Ice Age; the Western Schism; endless peasant uprisings and popular revolts; the Hundred Years' War; and so on. Feudalism/manorialism limped along for a little while afterward, but Thirty Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia are pretty strong arguments that it was dead long before capitalism became dominant.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
SubG posted:There really isn't any plausible argument for capitalism ending mediaeval feudalism. In the first French Revolution they burned the feudal records and obligations. In the failed revolutions of 1848 they burned the feudal records and obligations in several countries. Things were still pretty drat feudal for peasants in Europe until the bourgeoisie and later socialist revolutions started up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
SubG posted:There really isn't any plausible argument for capitalism ending mediaeval feudalism. The normal framing is that agrarian feudalism (roughly the thousand years preceding the 16th Century, although you can fiddle with the endpoints a lot) was supplanted by mercantilism (roughly the 16th to 18th Centuries) which lead to capitalism (somewhere around the late 18th/early 19th Century).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:In the first French Revolution they burned the feudal records and obligations. That said, "feudal" is a bit of a squishy term (some historians try to avoid it entirely). And, confusingly, it entered English in the 18th Century originally as a loan word from French, where it (or rather "féodalité") was used to describe precisely what you're talking about—that is, the system under the Ancien Régime. But in English it came to mean the system (or rather multiple related systems) existing in Europe in the period roughly between 500 and 1500, and not what succeeded it in France (which is sometimes but not consistently called "seigneurialism" in English). So if you want to make a rhetorical point by arguing that things were "pretty feudal" (whatever that means) in the 19th Century, that's fine. But I don't think that contradicts what I said. I also think that if this is something that we want to debate and/or discuss it probably belongs somewhere other than the AI chat thread.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
SubG posted:So if you want to make a rhetorical point by arguing that things were "pretty feudal" (whatever that means) in the 19th Century, that's fine. But I don't think that contradicts what I said. The system of formal social bonds and obligations are the essential thing. That doesn’t go away until the bourgeoisie revolutions. Yes it went through periods of changes in the nature of the obligations but the social system itself was still kicking. And I would extend the operating of that system all the way back to Diocletian’s reforms, not merely a post Roman system.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The system of formal social bonds and obligations are the essential thing. That doesn’t go away until the bourgeoisie revolutions.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
SubG posted:No. The obligations on agricultural workers were similar-ish (although not identical; corvée, for example, in the Ancien Régime was generally even more exploitative than the equivalent in the mediaeval period in general and substantially more exploitative than in the Late Middle Ages). But these obligations are lack the reciprocal nature of the mediaeval equivalents and in much of France they're purely monetary in character (like modern rents), which is absolutely not the case in the mediaeval feudalism. Yeah, I think one aspect of feudalism that gets dismissed or ignored a lot is that it's based on mutual obligation in a semi-theocratic framework. If you upset God by failing to execute the obligations of your divinely-ordained station, it's open season on you! This is ultimately not a great system for a lot of reasons, but it does carry with it certain charms that the purely monetary obligations of capitalist society lacks. Mediaeval society is actually a lot more nuanced than most people give it credit for, and it's a period of history that is broadly misunderstood, not least because we mostly don't pay any attention to it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I think one aspect of feudalism that gets dismissed or ignored a lot is that it's based on mutual obligation in a semi-theocratic framework. If you upset God by failing to execute the obligations of your divinely-ordained station, it's open season on you! During most of the middle ages, calvary was king. This needed horses and armor, which the great mass of peasants couldn't supply - but landowners could. Until the advent of longbows and guns, knights were essentially invincible against peasants, so peasant uprisings were easy to squash. While the lords needed the peasants to farm the land, and the peasants needed the land to eat. This shifted power towards landowners, within limits. Any kind of spiritual obligation only existed on Sundays. People were animated by material concerns, same as now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Mercantilism is a pattern of foreign trade policy, not a system of production in itself. Sid Meier lied to me!?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
We got a new AI movie! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=573GCxqkYEg Hope is good, it looks good.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:No, and that's a stupid loving conclusion from reading what I wrote. It's got nothing to do with destroying capitalism. Those entitled artists, trying to deprive me my toys 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Those entitled artists, trying to deprive me my toys "When I, an artist, do it, it's an important cultural shibboleth. When you do it, it's a toy."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Those entitled artists, trying to deprive me my toys Wanting to ban AI development and use and the products thereof completely is what I consider one of the reasonable and acceptable arguments for artists to make, so that's not it either. Good try, though. The current mainstream artist argument is that the only thing that makes AI problematic is if it looks at their stuff they've put out for public consumption. Also that using it is distasteful. Their proposed solutions generally involve tightening copyright laws so that artists who produce currently legal kinds of derivative works will be tossed in the gutter immediately, megacorps and other large rights-holders will be greatly empowered at the expense of individual artists, and their replacement by AI will not be slowed in the slightest but they will lose some level of access to the tools themselves. It's an argument based entirely around a kneejerk "This is mine and you can't look at it because its mine >:|" (for things they have posted publicly for people to look at) that is both unlikely to hold up in court and even if it does is unlikely to do anything to reduce the threat AI poses to their livelihood, and is making them willing to push for changes that will only hurt them. It's dumb. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:15 on May 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 16:00
|
|