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

  • 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.