(Thread IKs:
OwlFancier)
|
One funny thing about the "don't go after the tool!" argument I often see with dangerous technology is its basically a variation on the NRAs famous 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Fixing the ills of society that allow these tools to be dangerous is incredibly hard. Its not to say we shouldn't aim for that but regulation of the tool right now is something we can do and will help protect people in the mean time until the glorious revolution.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Just the notion that copies aren't art, seems like it would have issues with works that are fundamentally lacking an "original" such as digital works. How would it work with prints, transfers between media etc. That’s different because a print/digital copy isn’t distinct from the original - it’s the original piece of art copied so more people can enjoy it, but that copy isn’t in my eyes a distinct or different piece of art. These copies that are sold as distinct pieces are, to me, the same as a print in artistic value - that is, they’re just facsimiles of the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:30
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:That’s different because a print/digital copy isn’t distinct from the original - it’s the original piece of art copied so more people can enjoy it, but that copy isn’t in my eyes a distinct or different piece of art. I suppose its like if its actually a facsimile, so close its a forgery intended to fool someone thats one thing (that I don't particularly care about anyway). But the painting whatevil shared earlier was obviously a copy but distinct enough from the original to be obviously not a forgery, its like a cover. I don't think thats frowned upon in music, some other artist having their go at a classic so is it so bad in other art forms? I guess movie remakes get a bit more flack for being unoriginal. I don't really have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:39
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I suppose its like if its actually a facsimile, so close its a forgery intended to fool someone thats one thing (that I don't particularly care about anyway). But the painting whatevil shared earlier was obviously a copy but distinct enough from the original to be obviously not a forgery, its like a cover. I don't think thats frowned upon in music, some other artist having their go at a classic so is it so bad in other art forms? I guess movie remakes get a bit more flack for being unoriginal. Yeah it’s not the worst thing in the world or anything, I just don’t really get it if I’m honest. Same with film remakes really. Covers I get because of how different they are I guess. Some covers are better than the original even (sorry Cornershop, but I’m looking at brimful of Asha here). I guess a song also takes less time to write and produce than a full movie. I get ‘let’s see how A$AP ROCKY sounds singing Jolene’ because it’s something you can do without that many resources. I can’t fathom dedicating years of hundreds of people’s time to remaking The Jungle Book, on the other hand, but that’s capitalism. Re: that Keir video on asbos and restecpa, did anyone else notice all the old folk being like ‘well there’s nothing for them to do and they’re just trying to get what status and control they can’ and keirs like ‘AND THATS WHY WE WANT THOUSANDS MORE POLICE AND HARSHER SENTENCES’ like the absolute loving ghoul he is. Proof positive he isn’t just ignorant, he just loves crime and punishment (but not enough to rewrite it for a modern audience who can’t work out all the names)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:53
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:One funny thing about the "don't go after the tool!" argument I often see with dangerous technology is its basically a variation on the NRAs famous 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Fixing the ills of society that allow these tools to be dangerous is incredibly hard. To perhaps take the analogy too far, it might be easier, piecemeal, to address the ills of society in the USA than to regulate firearms. I think a democratic congress would have an easier time passing e.g. some sort of funding and support for young adults than it would introducing more stringent background checks or whatever, because going for the latter will bring the entire weight of the gun club apparatus down on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:56
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:
The weirdest remake I've ever seen is the Psycho one. Its a scene for scene redo with the same camera angles, exact same script. As close to the original as the director could manage. And yet it manages to be a much much worse film than the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 10:59
|
|
|
UKMT Winterval: Don’t Go After the Tool
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:05
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I suppose its like if its actually a facsimile, so close its a forgery intended to fool someone thats one thing (that I don't particularly care about anyway). But the painting whatevil shared earlier was obviously a copy but distinct enough from the original to be obviously not a forgery, its like a cover. I don't think thats frowned upon in music, some other artist having their go at a classic so is it so bad in other art forms? I guess movie remakes get a bit more flack for being unoriginal. The original song writer gets royalties on covers of their music though. There's a reason why my dad's copy of Led Zeppelin II has Whole Lotta Love credited to Bonham, Jones, Page & Plant while a modern printing credits it to those four AND Willie Dixon, Ditto The Lemon Song & Howlin' Wolf. Or the Puff Daddy song I'll Be Missing You, where they sampled a The Police song but didn't bother to clear the sample so now Sting gets 100% of royalties until something absurd like the 2050s
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:07
|
|
|
jaete posted:Nearly UK related - a new kind of gender gap is emerging, worldwide: This makes me increasingly worried for the future. Right wing internet ghouls getting their claws into kids. Can you imagine an entire generation of Andrew Tates?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:12
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:Some covers are better than the original even (sorry Cornershop, but I’m looking at brimful of Asha here) That's a remix not a cover
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:16
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Fixing the ills of society that allow these tools to be dangerous is incredibly hard. False dichotomy. Fighting for a better existence for *un*employed people is something we can do right now, that will help protect a larger group of people, and that undermines capitalist property 'rights' rather than supporting them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:25
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:That's a remix not a cover GOT EM
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:The original song writer gets royalties on covers of their music though. There's a reason why my dad's copy of Led Zeppelin II has Whole Lotta Love credited to Bonham, Jones, Page & Plant while a modern printing credits it to those four AND Willie Dixon, Ditto The Lemon Song & Howlin' Wolf. Or the Puff Daddy song I'll Be Missing You, where they sampled a The Police song but didn't bother to clear the sample so now Sting gets 100% of royalties until something absurd like the 2050s What happens if you stick some I dunno mozart or beethoven in your song? You don't have to pay anyone? So if painting covers were to work in the same way I'm cool to paint my own van gogh but can't do a hockney yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:What happens if you stick some I dunno mozart or beethoven in your song? You don't have to pay anyone? So if painting covers were to work in the same way I'm cool to paint my own van gogh but can't do a hockney yet. You don't have to pay the estate of Mozart but you might have to pay the record company of the orchestra that made the recording, if they can discover that you used their version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:38
|
|
|
mozart et. al. is public domain now due to expired copyright, you can use it however you want and you become the copyright owner of whatever music you made with it. If you use someone else's recording, then you'd have to get their permission as they own their recording.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:45
|
|
|
1965917 posted:This makes me increasingly worried for the future. The UK is still majority Liberal. If you consider that they got two options, the way to make the women's 50% will be 75% liberal minus 25% Conservative. The men will be 60/40. If you assume they're both about 50% of their age group, then you can add the percentage up and halve it to get the overall balance: 67.5 to 32.5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:47
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:What happens if you stick some I dunno mozart or beethoven in your song? You don't have to pay anyone? So if painting covers were to work in the same way I'm cool to paint my own van gogh but can't do a hockney yet. And the point of this is that is seems pretty silly to say I have to pay some dude cos I paint a picture like his. Whether thats with my own paintbrush or an ai tool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:48
|
|
|
chopping my ear off and having to pay royalties to van gogh
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 11:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:False dichotomy. Fighting for a better existence for *un*employed people is something we can do right now, that will help protect a larger group of people, and that undermines capitalist property 'rights' rather than supporting them. 'Fighting against gang violence is something we can do now and will help to protect against a larger group of people' It's not an "or" situation so I don't know why you are trying to make it one. We can fight for the rights of unemployed people and regulate harmful technology. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1751522785770303668?t=7qNasi66-NpZlSURfgss7w&s=19 E: also this morning, mycrimes_nationalbroadcast.mp4 https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1751535467776852011?t=8HdQot4sAaM00BDD0P-KgQ&s=19 Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
Mourning Due posted:Ah: my works looking to implement similar & it would save me a ton of time if we did: could you share more info on what solution you've used? Either here or over PMs? It’s just ChatGPT, but trained on the company data instead of the whole internet. I am not a computer toucher, so that’s about all I know I’m afraid!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:18
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:E: also this morning, mycrimes_nationalbroadcast.mp4 She admitted it in 2018, but some people get to commit crimes with no consequences 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:45
|
|
|
WUWURRUUGH RUSPUC MUH AUTHURUTUUUHH
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 12:59
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:It's not an "or" situation so I don't know why you are trying to make it one. Yes of course we can, didn't say otherwise. What I'm saying we should not do is uphold or strengthen copyright laws, or in any way campaign for employment in the service of capitalists. Regulating technology to allow only beneficial uses would be great! Framing the need for regulation in terms of creating or saving jobs, or stopping artistic 'theft', would be bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 13:03
|
|
|
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread but "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction" by Walter Benjamin is the OG marxist analysis here. Spoiler warning though, it ends with him noting that facsism is rooted in trying to do populism without affecting property relations in a manner that will sound all too familiar:quote:Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Fair enough then, that sounds grand. 19th C British history bores me to tears so I'm not exactly up with the nuances of the movement. I blame being forced to study the bloody chartists in high school. NotJustANumber99 posted:And the point of this is that is seems pretty silly to say I have to pay some dude cos I paint a picture like his. Whether thats with my own paintbrush or an ai tool. Whatever the potential use cases for LLMS and generative AI are, the people getting rich off the back of them are cunts who designed them to replace human beings. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
I see Badenoch is getting herself on the front pages for the inevitable leadership challenge soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:
If you want to respond to the posts I make you should read them so you don't make up an argument I'm not making and then berate me for not listening to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
That's what you said, I even quoted it:NotJustANumber99 posted:And the point of this is that is seems pretty silly to say I have to pay some dude cos I paint a picture like his. Whether thats with my own paintbrush or an ai tool. Again, please google Greg Rutowski for a major example of how none of this is theoretical, it is already happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:01
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:That's what you said, I even quoted it: That's only half the post you've quoted. How am I putting van Gogh out of a job whether I use a paint brush or an ai?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:UKMT Winterval: Don’t Go After the Tool UKMT Winterval: Don’t Go After the Tool, Go After The Son Of A Toolmaker
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:12
|
|
|
Oh, cease the chatter of AI, I implore, Enough with debates, let it be heard no more. Like Shrek's solitude in his cozy swamp retreat, Give us respite from AI talks, a blissful feat. Tesla dreams and neural nets can wait, In silence, let our minds contemplate. No need for discourse, no more AI spiel, Let's embrace serenity, like Shrek's tranquil appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
Just going to ignore the arguing going on around me here to say  if you want to stand to be a trustee of the UKMT Solidarity Fund you have until the end of today to let us know - if nobody is interested then the current committee will simply continue for another year, as none of us are choosing to retire just yet.Almost four years of helping goons, feels good man
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
Maugrim posted:Just going to ignore the arguing going on around me here to say You seem to be doing a good job so you should carry on. But maybe for the next year you could run a shadow chatGPT ai in parallel to see how it would perform, if it's given all the money away to dubious claims of hardship from bitcoin scammers or been so unmoved by tales of human suffering that it never pays out do anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
Some good old hooliganism in the football this afternoon, sounds like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
i had it on the TV, it's been great 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 14:51
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:That's only half the post you've quoted. How am I putting van Gogh out of a job whether I use a paint brush or an ai? If you are only talking about duplicating the work of artists who are dead or out of copyright, you still run up against the issue that a human takes hours or even days of time and resources to produce a single work of art. A generative AI can scrape an artist's entire back catalogue, finish its pattern recognition and start banging out derivatives in under a minute with zero effort. E: The human's output will be considered and driven by emotion and subconscious desire. The generative AI's output will necessarily be derivative and formulaic by its very nature. It is not at all the same thing for a human being to reproduce the style of another artist as it is for a generative AI to do it. No, that's not the point you were making, but it is a vital point to consider when making that argument. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:
I want talking about style though was I? Which you acknowledge? But you have to consider it anyway? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
Can you clarify then the point you were making, because if I'm not responding to it then I have no loving idea what it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
what will AI do about hotpot areas though
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 15:25
|
|
