Comment

honoring a special monopoly on abstract ideas and general forms of expression is a recipe for disaster that will only make our situation ×10 worse.

Please explain how honoring artist’s will can make the situation 10x worse?

I feel for the artists here

I’m sorry but I don’t believe you.

And I want to reiterate, I’m not talking about the law here, I’m talking about the effects the laws have.

Let me be clear, we’re not talking about whether AI “art” should be prohibited by law. We’re talking about this specific community on lemmy. I’m not a lawyer and I’m most definitely not the right person to decide what should be banned and what should be allowed in the country. I know that copyright is broken and it was like that long before AI was a thing. I don’t have a solution for that. Believe me I don’t. I also know law is different depending on where you are. So if the matter is international the discourse is certain. However this lemmy community is not a country so it has no law. It has rules to keep this community healthy. Banning AI wouldn’t really change your freedom to generate whatever you want, you only wouldn’t be able to share it here. I think it’s only fair to honor artists’ will and it would keep this community healthy. But again I’m just starting my stance on this topic. If the community wants AI I’m just unsubscribing.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Please explain how honoring artist’s will can make the situation 10x worse?

That’s what I was talking about when I said:

Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

And when I said:

What do you think someone who thinks you’re going to write an unfavorable review would say when you ask them permission to analyze their work? They’ll say no. One point for the scammers. When you ask someone to scrutinize their interactions online, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the misinformation spreaders. When you ask someone to analyze their thing for reverse engineering, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the monopolists. When you ask someone to analyze their data for indexing, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the obstructors.

And when I said:

…If we allow that type of overreach, we would be giving anyone a blank check to threaten the general populace with legal trouble off of just from the way you draw the eyes on a character. This is bad, and I shouldn’t have to explain or spell it out to you.

What these people want unfairly restricts self-expression and speech. Art isn’t a product, it is speech, and people are allowed to participate in conversations even when there are parties that rather they didn’t. Wanting to bar others from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful. That’s why the restrictions on art are so flexible and allow for so much to pulled from to make art.

And we’re discussing your assertion that AI art is unethical because of how it’s trained. I’ve given examples and explanations on how your views on honoring artists’ will is not only wrong, but shortsighted, and harmful to all of us. I do this not only in hopes of changing your mind, but also the minds of anyone who might be reading this thread. You have spent hours dishonestly dodging the actual points I’ve made, it’s not surprising you’re lost this far in.

source
- hypertown@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  I think you just don’t understand what this conversation is even about.
  
  You’re actually thinking that banning AI here (or even in the world) is somehow going to cripple artistic expression XDD
  
  Ah yes so the fact that I can’t print and resell someone’s work is also limiting artistic expression because my printer adds fine imperfections to the photo so it’s ART!
  Ridiculous, no? That’s how you sound.
  
  Looks like calling names is starting so I’m not willing to discuss this with you any further. Because you don’t know what actually matters you think I’m somehow being dishonest and dodging the questions while I could say literally the same about you lol!
  
  This conversation just made me realize that there are people who just don’t care about others. Saying that yeah fuck the artists because otherwise it’s limiting my freedom is just delusional.
  
  On the last note let me just say: try grabbing a pencil and perhaps one day you will understand what art really is.
  
  source
  - vbb@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    calling names
    
    I didn’t read the conversation between you two, but if you two were insulting each other or making fun of, I strongly recommend you to change your tone.
    
    source
    Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Just recently in the thread they asked me to define what I meant by public interest and I gave examples of what I meant. They say they don’t care about the laws, so I ask them to not look at the laws, but rather what the laws protect. In their reply, they again turn the conversation to the fact that legal language was used in the material I linked, rather than thinking of the ramifications of what it would be like to not have those protections to the public interest. Going so far as to cherry-pick quotes from the blog post I linked to present them in a way that tries to completely misrepresent the point of the post.
    
    In the message before the one you replied to, I clearly stated what I’m arguing and why, and in their reply they completely distort what I said into a straw man that they then mock.
    
    source
    hypertown@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Rather than making fun of each other it’s just a complete lack of understanding.
    I don’t like being called dishonest just because someone completely misses my point. I’m done here anyway.
    Unless there will be some misinformation spreading I don’t plan to continue this discussion any further.
    I think I’ve provided enough information on why I’m against AI “art” here.
    Then again I think the best course of action would be to ask the community what they want.
    
    source