• LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Fair enough, and I can’t claim to be a fan of copyright law or how it’s used. Maybe what I’m moreso talking about is a standard of ethics? Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law. Like just straight up a law making it mandatory for AI to provide a list of all the data it used, as well as proof of the source of that data having consented to it’s use in training the AI.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      There’s nothing wrong with being able to use others’ copyrighted material without permission though. For analysis, criticism, research, satire, parody and artistic expression like literature, art, and music. In the US, fair use balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s right to access and use information. There are rights people can maintain over their work, and the rights they do not maintain have always been to the benefit of self-expression and discussion.

      It would be awful for everyone if IP holders could take down any review, finding, reverse engineering, or indexes they didn’t like. That would be the dream of every corporation, bully, troll, or wannabe autocrat. It really shouldn’t be legislated.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m not talking about IP holders, and I do not agree with copyright law. I’m not having a broad discussion on copyright here. I’m only saying, and not saying anything more, that people who sit down and make a painting and share it with their friends and communities online should be asked before it is scanned to train a model. That’s it.

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          How’re we supposed to have things like reviews, research findings, reverse engineering, or indexes if you have to ask first? The scams you could pull if you could attack anyone caught reviewing you. These rights exist to protect us from the monopolies on expression that would increase disparities and divisions, manipulate discourse, and in the end, fundamentally alter how we interact online with each other for the worse.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I’m suggesting is:

            “Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist.”

            • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I read that. That’s what I’ve been responding to the whole time. This is a way to analyze and reverse engineer images so you can make your own original works. In the US, the first major case that established reverse engineering as fair use was Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc in 1992, and then affirmed in Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation in 2000. Do you think SONY or SEGA would have allowed anyone to reverse engineer their stuff if they asked nice? Artists have already said they would deny anyone.

              It’s not about the data, people having a way to make quality art themselves is an attack on their status, and when asked about generators that didn’t use their art, they came out overwhelmingly against with the same condescending and reductive takes they’ve been using this whole time.

              • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Those are corporations. I’m concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

                I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You’re essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren’t hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You’re refusing to even ask her if she’s okay with her creations being used in this way.

                You’re wrong. What you’re describing is immoral. I don’t care about corporations. They’re not who I’m interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You’re also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It’s cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That’s its best use case at the moment. It’s gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.

                • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Those are corporations. I’m concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

                  I have always been focused on impacts to individuals. Let me make my self clear. It is wrong for IP-holders, be they corporations or independent artists, to have the power to control speech to the degree you’re suggesting. Calling this stealing is self-serving, manipulative rhetoric that unjustly vilifies people and misrepresents the reality of how these models work and how the rights we have work.

                  I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You’re essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren’t hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You’re refusing to even ask her if she’s okay with her creations being used in this way.

                  Then let’s amend my statements and limit them to only the loud, belligerent minority online. I know most artists don’t care, I’ve seen it myself. I apologize for that. And I am saying not enough people would say yes to that option. Self-interest is a powerful force, without agreements by people ahead of time, some would absolutely degrade the experience of those around by initiating a race to the bottom to take more for themselves. That’s why it isn’t Charlotte’s place to police what others talk about, this is something we’ve learned over hundreds of years. She is afforded a part of speech to protect her specific expressions, to ask for more than that, to want to encroach on people who aren’t infringing on her piece of the pie is greedy and malicious. Even if the ramifications of her actions aren’t apparent to her, especially if the ramifications aren’t apart to her.

                  Styles are equivalent to ideas and Ideas are the property of nobody, this is a requirement because everyone in existence has derived their work from the work of others. Art isn’t a product, it is expression, it is speech, it is inspiration, it is joy, it is what all humans are entitled to do. This is my first time seeing so many seriously considering cordoning off such a huge part of the human experience for the profit of a few, and it is concerning.

                  I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

                  • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    ‘Charlotte’ draws for people. She’s good at it, and it’s her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That’s it. It’s not complicated. You shouldn’t get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it’s very bad at doing so).

                    AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It’s spit on the face of art as a concept. It’s art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It’s no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It’s mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I’m not about it.

                    AI in pretty well any other case? I’m on board. Let’s automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I’m totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I’ve got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I’m very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn’t genuine human expression.

                    Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.

                • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig

                  I don’t think images on instagram were used to train open source AI. It’s not exactly public. But Charlotte has allowed Meta to train AI on her images.

                  I think this may be part of the reason why the communication is unsatisfactory. You say you are concerned about the impact on individuals, but what you propose decidedly favors large corporations and the rich. I don’t see what difference it makes for Charlotte’s life, if an AI is trained on her images. I do see the benefit to Meta and others like it if open AI and smaller start-ups are curtailed.

                  I don’t understand how your proposal would help someone like Charlotte.

                  • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law.

      What you are talking about is an expansion of copyright law. Copyright includes more than just the right to make copies. It also includes the right to authorize derivatives, such as translations of texts, movies based on comics, or games based on movies. Fan art is also a derivative and relies on fair use for its legality (assuming it is legal).

      If one were to create an “AI training right”, then the natural place to put it, would be with the other rights covered by copyright. Of course, one could lay down such a right outside the copyright statute, and write that it is not part of copyright law.

      In any case, it would be intellectual property. The person, who can allow or deny AI training on some work, would own that right as intellectual property.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I’m not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone’s art. Sucks for them I guess.

        I don’t agree with copyright. I’m an anarchist. I’m openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don’t agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that’s all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

        That’s my only statement. You can assume I effectively don’t agree with any other thing. I’m not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don’t agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I’m pointing at pixiv the website and saying “hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people’s shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs”

        Unless you’re going to somehow explain why artists aren’t worth existing or something then don’t even bother answering. I’m genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I just thought you should know where you stand on the issue. It will make it easier to communicate. Just say that you want to expand copyright to cover AI training and boom. Clear statement. No long winded, nuanced debate needed.

          Don’t actually know where the hostility comes from. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I’ve described what I think is right pretty fully. I don’t need you to tell me where I stand.

            You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I’m not mistaking you for someone else. I’m just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I’m fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That’s it fam I’m out

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not mistaking you for someone else.

              It’s just that this was only the second reply to me, and the first about copyright. I had read your posts here and have ended up confused. I’m sorry that I have jumped to the wrong conclusion about where you stand. The regulation you propose would create, as far as I can tell, a new form of intellectual property. That just leaves me baffled WRT you not wanting laws on IP, but I guess I will have to live with that.