The AI Red Scare is only harming artists and needs to stop.

[Micah Sweet]

The difference is that the artist is a human being - they can choose to refuse your request or fulfill it, they can and have to take responsibility for their actions and, as human beings, have moral and legal rights applicable to their work.

But once you have the product, if it does what you want, how much does it matter where it came from? My suspicion is that a lot of folks don't really care.

 

[BookTenTiger]

But once you have the product, if it does what you want, how much does it matter where it came from? My suspicion is that a lot of folks don't really care.

If you pay for an apple at the store or steal it, you wind up with an apple either way. Would you say there's no difference there?

In my view the difference between paying for a piece of art and having a free AI program make the art is that in one case you are giving money to a human being who can then go on to use that money to eat and live, and in the other case you are using a program that, without permission, reused that artist's work. It's as simple as treating the artist like a human being who deserves to be compensated for their work.

 

[Swanosaurus]

But once you have the product, if it does what you want, how much does it matter where it came from? My suspicion is that a lot of folks don't really care.

Even (and especially) if a lot of people don't care, that's a good reason to find ways to regulate potentially un-ethical production methods. The less people care whether clothes are produced in sweatshops, the more we need legislation to outlaw such extreme forms of exploitation. (I'm not saying that using AI to create art is un-ethical to the same degree as running sweatshops; I'm still not even a 100% sure that it necessarily is unethical; I just have huge concerns about monetizing art created by humans without recompensation to its creators).

 

[Von Corellon]

I bet that with just one intern and thirty minutes, you could crank out a fake band called "Iron Candy Cane," complete with ten heavy-metal Christmas songs, lyrics, and an album cover.

Hm. The scary thing is, that's not even an exaggeration.

If you do, let me know...I'll sign it to my brand-new record label, CleverRecords.

I have covered Burl Ives before - Holly Jolly Christmas … this record sells itself.
And we won’t have to use AI
Hahahahahaha zing

 

[CleverNickName]

Even (and especially) if a lot of people don't care, that's a good reason to find ways to regulate potentially un-ethical production methods. The less people care whether clothes are produced in sweatshops, the more we need legislation to outlaw such extreme forms of exploitation. (I'm not saying that using AI to create art is un-ethical to the same degree as running sweatshops; I'm still not even a 100% sure that it necessarily is unethical; I just have huge concerns about monetizing art created by humans without recompensation to its creators).

Sadly, this isn't new either. Art and artists have always been looked down upon by most people, at least in my lifetime. Art degrees are mocked as being useless and superfluous (at best), and the people who study art are considered pretentious and lazy. Ask anyone with an art degree how many times they've been told to "get a real job," and be ready to duck.

In the 80s, public schools were cutting their art programs like crazy because they were considered useless, an unnecessary strain on school budgets. And it wasn't new then, either: my grandparents used to talk about how the only things worth studying were "the three R's."

AI is just the latest tool that companies are using to devalue art and the people who create it. And just like always, there are people who think this is a good thing. I didn't pivot to engineering because I agreed with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you pay for an apple at the store or steal it, you wind up with an apple either way. Would you say there's no difference there?

In my view the difference between paying for a piece of art and having a free AI program make the art is that in one case you are giving money to a human being who can then go on to use that money to eat and live, and in the other case you are using a program that, without permission, reused that artist's work. It's as simple as treating the artist like a human being who deserves to be compensated for their work.

Your analogy is flawed. A stolen apple applies risk to the consumer that a purchased one, no matter who you purchased it from, doesn't, in the form of getting caught and punished.

 

[Bagpuss]

Wow that /wasitai certainly creates a lot of false positives. I've been feeding it RPG art from prior to 2020 and it keeps saying it was produced by a robot.

 

[Bagpuss]

AI creators ARE stealing. They're knowingly using intellectual property that doesn't belong to them for training the AI, that's theft. OpenAI outright admitted they can't create AI without violating copyright laws:

That's not what they said at all. Yes, they said they couldn't train without using copyright materials, but you cut off the next sentence where they said.

"In training our models, OpenAI complies with the requirements of all applicable laws, including copyright laws. Nevertheless, although we believe that legally copyright law does not forbid training, we also recognize that there is still work to be done to support and empower creators."

At no point did they admitted they are violating copyright laws.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Your analogy is flawed. A stolen apple applies risk to the consumer that a purchased one, no matter who you purchased it from, doesn't, in the form of getting caught and punished.

To me, the risk of being caught isn't the reason to not steal something. Supporting human community is a bigger contributing factor.

If I am trying to publish an RPG and I pay for art from artists, I'm supporting my community. If I publish an RPG and I use an AI program that uses an unpaid artist's work to produce art, I'm not supporting my community.

 

[Swanosaurus]

That's not what they said at all. Yes, they said they couldn't train without using copyright materials, but you cut off the next sentence where they said.

"In training our models, OpenAI complies with the requirements of all applicable laws, including copyright laws. Nevertheless, although we believe that legally copyright law does not forbid training, we also recognize that there is still work to be done to support and empower creators."

At no point did they admitted they are violating copyright laws.

Well, if you unpack it, they said: "We used copyrighted material, but we are convinced that that doesn't violate copyright." So whether they admitted that they're violating copyright law or not depends on whether you consider what they did a violation of copyright. Them claiming that whatever they did wasn't a violation doesn't really enter into it.

If someone says: "Yeah, I took his car without asking and ran for it, but really, I didn't steal it, I just kind of took it", they still admitted stealing it. They just don't realize that what they did constitutes theft (or are trying to convince you it doesn't).