AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Maxperson]

Yes you have.

You can repeat that, but you can't make it true. Talking about one aspect of AI being used as a tool doesn't say or imply that I approve of it as a whole and/or don't strongly disapprove of it in other ways.

I have not blanked defended or argued in favor of generative AI. Not once.

 

[Cergorach]

Also, I'm gonna steal your car.

If you ever find it, let me know... I don't own one...

No. Because it is not disagreement, it is recognition that the use of generative AI is unethical. Inherently and unavoidably. it is never "great", no matter what ridiculous excuses you make.

Yes, it's disagreement, no matter how you dress it up. You (and others) 'feel' you're right and are willing to 'enforce' that you're 'right' with others. * shrugs * The Internet and the world is full of people that try to do the same on all sides of the fence...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you ever find it, let me know... I don't own one...

Yes, it's disagreement, no matter how you dress it up. You (and others) 'feel' you're right and are willing to 'enforce' that you're 'right' with others. * shrugs * The Internet and the world is full of people that try to do the same on all sides of the fence...

The idea rhat all sides are doing the same thing, that people refusing to support unethical products and industries is the same thing as people trying to ban books for having gays in them, is a toxic notion invented by the latter group to get people to do the work of normalising and downplaying what they are doing for them.

Pointing out when something is unethical or immoral is not a difference of opinion. "Rivers should be clean and companies that polljte them should be forced to pay for the work of cleaning them up plus punitive damages to discourage further pollution" is not an opinion in disagreement with companies that want to dump their industrial waste in the river. It is a matter of moral right and wrong.

Generative AI is unethical. It is very bad for our society, for the enviroment, and for individuals. There are many reputable studies that show each of those statements to be true.

Trying to equate that to bad faith actors using fake moral outrage to excuse and facilitate their bigotry, is also an unethical act on a personal level. That is what you have done by trying to lump all objectors into one bucket.

"No one has the right to tell me anything or ever judge my actions" is not a valid moral philosophy.

 

[Morrus]

Talking about one aspect of AI being used as a tool doesn't say or imply that I approve of it as a whole and/or don't strongly disapprove of it in other ways.

Again, not what I said, is it? I already told you, strawmanning is weaksauce. Far too easy to spot.

I have not blanked defended or argued in favor of generative AI. Not once.

I don't know what "blanked defended" means and it's certainly not a term I have used. But you have argued in favor of generative AI both in this thread and in many others. I guess gaslighting is one step up from strawmanning, but you're still not there yet. Why not try throwing in a false dilemma or a sneaky little circular argument? Those are far more fun!

 

[Morrus]

If you ever find it, let me know... I don't own one...

Yes, it's disagreement, no matter how you dress it up. You (and others) 'feel' you're right and are willing to 'enforce' that you're 'right' with others. * shrugs * The Internet and the world is full of people that try to do the same on all sides of the fence...

I think when your argument descends to the level of 'ethics are just a matter of opinion' it's pretty much ceded.

Also, your doctor is delighted to know that they are absolved from any ethical obligations (regarding you, specifically--I don't think the rest of their patients are likely to be so generous with their waivers). This has the makings of an awesome reality show!

 

[Bill Zebub]

An ethical discussion in the context of copyright infringement is interesting, because the whole reason we have copyright (and patents) is not because of ethics, or a creator's "natural right" to their work, but because it provides an economic incentive to innovate. That doesn't mean it's unethical to break laws, of course, but I feel like over the last 250 years (mostly in the last 75) the issue has become very clouded, no thanks to Disney lawyers.

And just to make it 100% clear: I'm NOT saying it's ok to steal, or that how LLMs were trained is ok. I'm just pointing out that this idea of "a creator owns their work" has become a moral concept only relatively recently.

On the other hand, that's just what I've read. I'm certainly not an expert on the history of it, and if somebody with real expertise wants to enlighten me, I'm listening.

 

[Epic Meepo]

I was thinking, "Huh, if I write a program that ingests a data set and then outputs a visualization, I'm pretty sure I'm the creator of that visualization, even if I didn't create the data. Even if I use a library like d3.js instead of writing it all from scratch."

I’d say it isn't that straightforward. If one counts the series of commands entered by an end user of Photoshop as a data set, I'd argue Photoshop is a program which ingests a data set and outputs a visualization, but I'd be hard-pressed to say the programmer who created Photoshop is solely responsible for any visualization resulting from the end user's commands. (My earlier example was intended to call attention to the subset of all possible programs which happen to require input from a third party before they can produce output, and the exact input the program will receive when it runs isn't known to the programmer.)

It's why the fundamental question here is, who is the creator - because AI most surely isn't the creator of anything until the time it's sentient. Note, the who is the creator question doesn't always converge to a single or primary person, it oftentimes is a collaboration.

That’s essentially the conclusion I was trying to suggest with the example I provided, so I think we’re in agreement. The output of a program that prompts users for extensive input is often a collaborative creation.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If one counts the series of commands entered by an end user of Photoshop as a data set,

If one were to do that, then it wouldn't be the data set the programmer worked with.

 

[Epic Meepo]

The outputs are created by the programmer with the exception of bugs that are unintended and fixed when possible. Just because you can find the rare bug doesn't make the millions of intended outputs your creation and not the programmers.

From the beginning I have differentiated between the two methods and disavowed the first. Only the first method is generative AI. The second is not using it as generative AI, but using it as a tool to achieve an artists vision.

You claim the outputs of a program are created by its programmers. The gen AI software which outputs an image is a program. Therefore, an image created by gen AI software is created by the AI’s programmers. Since the AI’s programmers create the images the AI produces, per your claim, an artist cannot claim to be the creator of an image they instructed a gen AI to produce (unless the artist also programmed that AI software).

 

[Epic Meepo]

If one were to do that, then it wouldn't be the data set the programmer worked with.

Correct. My example was a program which manipulates data sets not available to the programmer, since I wanted to make an analogy to a gen AI interface which processes prompts entered by end users (as opposed to the separate software programmers use to create their AI's underlying base model from data sets they provide).