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

• 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

    • cole@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This is incorrect actually. The models these AIs run from by definition have imperfect recall otherwise they would be ENORMOUS. No, that’s actually exactly the opposite of how these work.

      They train a statistically weighted model to predict outputs based on inputs. It has no actual image data stored internally, it can’t.

      source

      • drewdarko@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This is incorrect actually. The models these AIs run from by definition have perfect recall and that is why they require ENORMOUS resources to run and why ChatGPT became less effective when the resources it was allocated were reduced.

        -ChatGPT

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I'm pretty sure that the way they constantly fuck up hands is a solid demonstration that these AI tools do not have a perfect recollection

      source

      • drewdarko@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The reason they fuck up hands is because hands are usually moving during pictures and have many different configurations compared to any other body part.

        So when these image AIs refer back to all the pictures of hands they’ve been fed and use them to create an ‘average approximation’ of what a hand looks like they include the motion blur from some of their samples, a middle finger sticking up from another sample or extra fingers from the sample pictures of people holding hands etc and mismatch them together even when it doesn’t fit in the picture being created.

        The AI doesn’t know what a hand is. It is just mixing together samples from its perfect recollection.

        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

    • Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I agree. Well, that is assuming there's no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article, and there usually is if you want to get something actually good. The piece referenced was entered in to a photomanipulation and editing category too, which seems like it's very much in keeping with the spirit of the competition. But the reason I said that was because the comment I was replying to wasn't about who has the copyright of the tool's output, it was about the value of the output and tools in general

      source

      • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Well, that is assuming there’s no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article

        If there was, then the artist should have discussed those heaps of human editing that went into the creation of this piece of art, and he would have been granted a copyright.

        The fact that he refused to disclose what - if anything - was done after the AI spit out the result is what resulted in him not being granted copyright.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • treefrog@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The tools are valuable for sure.

        Where the law is on copyright it looks like we’re figuring out. For now I’m glad to see rulings like this as it will, hopefully, take some of the wind out of Hollywood studios and aide union negotiations.

        source
    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Copyright just isn’t compatible with AI, we need to abolish it.

      If a picture gets generated, who is the owner? The one writing the prompt? The AI that generated it? The researchers that created the AI? The artist on which the picture is based?

      How about none of them? It is a picture, a piece of information. It doesn’t need an owner.

      source

      • treefrog@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Can we get UBI before we start abolishing people’s income though?

        source
  • 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