Comment

Comment on US rejects AI copyright for famous state fair-winning Midjourney art

Then why does all AI need to harvest the work of millions of artists in order to create one mediocre painting? Millions upon millions of hours of blood sweat and tears is hidden behind that algorithm. Thousands of people starting to draw when they are 5 and never stopping in order to get as good as they are.

All big AI services refuse to disclose the training set they use and those that we know anything about absolutely uses copyrighted material from artist that didn’t consent to be part of the training set.

This is what fuels my contempt for AI. People that uses literal billions of dollars of stolen time and talent and then pretend that actually having ideas is the important bit.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I mean, I agree that the developers of these AI tools need to be made to be more ethical in how they use stuff for training, but it is worth noting that that's kind of also how humans learn. Every human artist learns, in part, by absorbing the wealth of prior art that they experience. Copying existing pieces is even a common way to practice.

source
- Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn’t steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn’t work when you want to copyright stuff.
  
  Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.
  
  That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don’t personally think that is analogous but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.
  
  source
  - Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    There's a reason I said "they should be made to be more ethical" and not just "they should be more ethical". I know that they aren't going to do it themselves and I'll support well-written regulations on them.
    
    but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.
    
    Isn't it what almost your entire comment was about?
    
    source
    Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The argument was basically “that is how humans learn too”. I accepted that analogy because it doesn’t change my conclusion that AI can’t be copyrighted. Had the discussion been about something else I wouldn’t have accepted that argument.
    
    source
  - Venat0r@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    To play devil’s advocate: What about artists that use assistants, is using AI not the same as using an assistant?
    
    source
- drewdarko@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The difference is a human artist can then make new unique art and contribute to the craft so it can advance and they can make a living off it. AI made art isn’t unique, it’s a collage of other art. To get art from AI you have to feed it prompts of things it’s seen before. So when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.
  
  source
  - Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they've seen before and meanings associated with them.
    
    it’s a collage of other art
    
    This is genuinely a misunderstanding of how these programs work.
    
    when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.
    
    Because the only art anyone has ever done is when someone else paid them for it? There are a lot of art forms that generally aren't commercially viable, and it's very odd to insist that commercial viability is what advances an art form.
    
    I do actually get regularly paid for a kind of work that is threatened by these things (although in my case it's LLMs, not images). For the time being I can out-perform ChatGPT and the like, but I don't expect that that will last forever. Either I'll end up incorporating it or I'll need to find something else to do. But I'm not going to stop doing my hobby versions of it.
    
    Technology kills jobs all the time. We don't have many human calculators these days. If the work has value beyond the financial, people will keep doing it.
    
    source
    drewdarko@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Human brains don’t have perfect recollection. Every time we retell a story or remember a memory or picture an image in our head it is distorted with our own imperfections.
    
    When I prompt an AI to create an image it samples the images it learned from with perfect recollection.
    
    AI does not learn the same way humans do.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    treefrog@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they’ve seen before and meanings associated with them.
    
    In which case the machine would get the copyright (which legally they can’t now), not the prompter.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    FluffyPotato@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    What? Humans don’t learn to paint by looking at paintings, most people learn by just painting. Humans can also draw art without having ever seen any. AI on the other hand can only draw from other people’s works, it has no creativity of its own.
    
    source
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
All those artists did the same thing, they’re also only able to pursue art because the work of so many people before has made a world in which we’re so surrounded by luxury that they don’t need to work the fields just to survive.

As the famous meme so rightly states, we live in a society. I get that a lot of modern artists don’t want to help build a better society for all because they want to protect their privileged position in capitalism but that’s not really an option, you live by the sword of capitalism you die by the sword of capitalism.

source
- Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Artists. Famously part of the ruling class.
  
  source
  - Meowoem@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    You can have a privileged position in capitalism without being the ruling class, beside we’re not talking about all the artists because a huge amount do art because they love creativity, expression and visual beauty - the ones who wage this absurd battle against emerging technology are either in a privileged position or who envision themselves in that privileged position in the future.
    
    source
- mriormro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Jesus, you AI people are idiots.
  
  source
  - Meowoem@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    And you haters have nothing substantial to say beside screaming that the whole world should stop just so you don’t have to adapt to a changing world
    
    The funniest thing is the current system isn’t even very good for artists, you’re fighting to protect capitalism when capitalism is shitting all over you but because you can imagine a situation where you’re slightly higher up the stack than other people you’re fighting desperately for your chance to shit on people below you. It really is shameful tbh.
    
    source
    mriormro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I don’t hate ai assisted technologies. I just think it’s hilarious that you’ve been ranting and raving about how artists are the true ruling class and ai is our how we break the chains of their oppression.
    
    You see these technologies as somehow a means of democratizing all creative endeavors. I see these technologies, as they stand, as just the latest in the attempts of those who own the tech and data to siphon even more control, autonomy, and wealth from the rest of us
    
    But yeah dude, have fun typing in prompts and feeling like you did something cool.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    See ya in 10 years, friend. We’ll revisit this conversation.
    
    source
Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It is funny how that “one mediocre painting” won the award while the human art did not.

source