No matter how much you’d like for it to be the case, proprietary algorithms owned by big corporations are not remotely comparable to children.
Comment on The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal
linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before you stands 8-year-old Billy Smith. He stands accused of training on copyrighted material. We actually have live video of him looking and reading books from the library. He he trained on the contents of over 100 books this year.
We ask you to enforce the maximum penalty and send his parents to prison.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 months ago
0laura@lemmy.world 2 months ago
proprietary algorithms owned by big corporations
tell that to civitai users lol
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 months ago
- Your machine learning algorithms are not people. No amount of calling it Alex or giving it a voice stolen from a well-known actress will change that fact.
- If I traced an artwork or copied GPL licensed code into an non-GPL one, my ass would be beaten by others on the internet.
- So far, the main usecase of this generative technology is scamming, intentionally creating distrust in the artist community, and an even worse and scummier form of plagiarism, but it doesn’t matter because some shitpost that goes hard, “what if a content creator needs a stock photo?”, and “what if it could be used to resurrect your favorite artist?”.
- Power imbalance. There’s a difference a young creator not having money to buy a training material and a big corporation wanting to destroy their profession.
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
If I traced an artwork or copied GPL licensed code into an non-GPL one, my ass would be beaten by others on the internet.
If I gave you an arbitrary image from Midjourney and all of the training data from it, I doubt you could match it to the “source art.” AI images are usually transformative.
IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 months ago
This, exactly. AI is generating new images. Oh whoop de do, they did it by mixing a bunch of pixels. As though making an image out of tiny photos isnt literally the same thing and considered transformative. People just have a double standard about a program instead of a person doing it. (Except for that subset kd online artists, they’re just bezerk about copyright and credit in general)
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Which part of “an even worse and scummier form of plagiarism” you didn’t understand?
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
What part of “transformative” did you not understand?
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Thanks chatgpt
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Pleased to take part in creating the scarcity free future by letting hustle bros to ruin art communities, and letting terminally online people to create endless followups to Metropolis Pt. II instead of them sending death threats to Dream Theater!
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I get what you’re saying, but there’s something of a difference between someone studying something for months or years then writing about it, and a language model ran by one of the tech giants scraping media and immediately generating stuff from it, for commercial use, for the profit of the company that owns it.
It’s kinda like how plagiarising somebody’s book word for word never used to be a crime when it was a painstaking process of manually writing it back out for every copy. When the printing press came out, though? It allowed dodgy businesses to large-scale fuck over authors, and the law had to play catch-up.
I don’t think we should think of AI models or corporations as being people. They shouldn’t necessarily have the same rights and privileges that we do.
Evotech@lemmy.world 2 months ago
There’s a lot of private people training models (Lora, Dora’s etc) / fine-tuning checkpoints and what have you
Training models is not just giant tech corps anymore
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I know, I have one running locally on my PC, it’s neat.
I still don’t think that changes my point, though - a large AI model, particularly one that can scrape the whole web of any content it can find, then immediately be used to generate content is very different to the idea of a little 8 year old in a library reading books.
And I still maintain that companies aren’t people and shouldn’t necessarily have the same rights as a person.
IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 months ago
What of the images random people generate from software like dall e? Those are made from the same training data, and what this poicy does to them is make media creation more inaccessible even though the technology exists. Also, copying a book word for word by hand isnt/wasnt plagarism, its unlicensed duplication. Plagarism would be changing just the proper nouns and pretending like its a completely seperate book