Comment on How much did photography "stole" painter jobs ?

NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Vlyn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If you have a basic understanding how AI works then this argument doesn’t hold much water.

  Let’s take the human approach: I’m going to look at all the works of popular painters to learn their styles. Then I grab my painting tools and create similar works.

  No credit there, I still used all those other works as input and created by own based on them.

  With AI it’s the same, just in a much bigger capacity. If you ask AI to redraw the Mona Lisa you won’t get a 1:1 copy out, because the original doesn’t exist in the trained model, it’s just statistics.

  Same as if you tell a human to recreate the painting, no matter how good they are, they’ll never be able to perfectly reproduce the original work.

  source

  • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    But it does hold water. The original image might not be contained within the model, but the fact that it was trained on stolen data makes it problematic. Even if humans do the same, an AI model is not a human, and therefore needs to adhere to different rules.

    source

    • NotSpez@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Also: scale. If you’re a painter inspired by other painters, your output will still be limited. AI is a different story in this regard.

      source
    • dave@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Like elephants?

      It does become not a technical discussion but a philosophical one pretty soon. I’m not sure humans can accurately cite their sources either—yes they can be interviewed and claim X or Y as a big influence on their artistic work. But how do they know that? Do they know that more than an AI asked the same question?

      source
    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If a painter looks at another artisis painting, then decided to paint something similar, is that stealing?

      source
  • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Let’s explore this further. When we look at the work of a human we can often see their influences (and they can often acknowledge them or even cite specific works). In a way, they are able to credit those they were inspired by.

    Would an “AI” be able to do the same? I’m guessing it probably can, but more as a statistical similarity to other works. I don’t know if it can cite its sources.

    source

    • VivaceMoss@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      A human can say that they were influenced by XYZ but they might not be crediting all of the instructors they had, or all the art books they read, all the stepping stones that got them to the point of being able to produce a work that has an identifiable influence. Then consider the people who influenced the person they’re citing as an influence, and so on and so on. I don’t know that the AI can tell you where every flourish comes from, but the person using it as a tool certainly could tell you what tags they used, which often include "in the style of "

      source
  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    With AI it’s the same, just in a much bigger capacity.

    And this bigger capacity makes a huge difference.

    I try to give you an easy example:

    When a company wants to fell a tree, it is no big deal. When a company wants to fell 100.000 trees, you would maybe start to think if they should be allowed to do that. Environment and all. When a company wants to fell all the trees in the whole world, you would say No to that plan (hopefully) without much thinking.

    So, you see, scale makes a difference in nearly all decisions. Legal and other.

    source