A rising movement of artists and authors are suing tech companies for training AI on their work without credit or payment

  • Fonchote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree with you, the only caveat here is that the artist mentioned say that their books were illegally obtained. Which is a valid argument. I don’t see c how training an ai in publicly available information is any different than a human reading/seeing said information and learning from it. Now that same human pirating a book is illegal.

    The additional complexity here are laws that were written and are enforced by people that don’t fully grasp this technology. If this was traditional code, then yes it could be a copywrite issue, but the models should be trained on enough data to create derivative works.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see c how training an ai in publicly available information is any different than a human reading/seeing said information and learning from it.

      well, the difference is that humans are quite well autoregulated system… as new artists are created by learning from the old ones, the old ones die, so the total number stays about the same. the new artists also have to eat, so they won’t undermine others in the industry (at least not behind some line) and they cannot scale their services to the point where one artist would serve all the customers and all other artists would go die due to starvation. that’s how the human civilization works since the dawn of the civilization.

      i hope i don’t need to describe how ai is different.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure this argument really addresses the point. If some human artist did become so phenomenally efficient at creating art that they could match the output of the likes of Midjourney as it is today, I don’t think anybody would be complaining that they learned their craft by looking at other artists’ work. If they wouldn’t, it’s clearly not the scale of the output alone that’s the issue here.

        It’s also not reasonable to describe the art market as an infinitely and inherently self-regulating one just because artists die. Technology has severely disrupted it before. The demand for calligraphers certainly took quite a hit when the printing press was invented. The camera presumably displaced a substantial amount of the portrait market. Modern digital art tools like Photoshop facilitate an enormously increased output from a given number of artists.