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

[FrogReaver]

This is an increasing problem, and it overlaps with the right to know what you are buying. When buying something--whether that's food, medicine, a car, a book, or whatever--there should be full transparency what you're paying for. If I buy a Porsche and somebody has put a Ford Mondeo engine in it, I've been defrauded. It should be the same with IP--I should know whether what I'm buying was made by people or was plagiarised by an algorithm (because if it was the latter, I would not have parted with my money--I don't buy things which have no value).

It's not often we agree, but the right to know what you are buying is one I 100% agree with.

 

[Morrus]

I've found some excellent images in here, mostly from the (sadly) now-closed AI images thread in the D&D forum, and have in some cases modified them myself (I'm not bad at modifying existing images but utterly useless at creating them from scratch) for my game.

Well, there's one upside: you have at least convinced me that that thread was just a repository of AI slop, and not an informative discussion thread of the capabilities of AI. So, on reflection, I think we won't be allowing that thread to reopen. Thanks!

With this, and trappedslider brazenly using AI to reply to me in a thread, it's certainly helping shape EN World's policies.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, that's what you said. I just dragged it out to examine it a bit more.

Its a loaded definition of 'art' that not only excludes just about every actual piece of art in human history done in the past, but is being done specifically to bias towards a more pro-AI basis. So, yeah, nah mate, not buying it.

Well see, I thought it was obvious I intentionally used a specific and narrower definition of art that was limited to the kinds of things an LLM can actually produce so that the conversation could stay apples vs apples.

So score your rhetorical points, just know they don't reflect my argument at all. Of course there are other forms of art other than just digital.

 

[FrogReaver]

With this, and trappedslider brazenly using AI to reply to me in a thread, it's certainly helping shape EN World's policies.

There's one thing here I don't get. What's the difference in using google, finding a website with a definition for a term and pasting that into enworld vs using chat gpt, getting a definition for a term and pasting that into enworld?

 

[Mecheon]

Oh yes I need to worry about the legality!

Taking someone's copyrighted art and including-releasing it in a direct-to-public-domain product ain't gonna fly very far, is it?

I mean, small direct to public stuff? Generally not. If you're making a Kaijuborn race and grab some stock Godzilla and Gamera art or movie screenshots to throw in there, I doubt either company is going to come down on you

Now, once money gets involved, that's a different story, but if stuff's free and clearly fanwork, then not much tends to really happen unless its pushing the boundaries.

Well see, I thought it was obvious I intentionally used a specific and narrower definition of art that was limited to the kinds of things an LLM can actually produce so that the conversation could stay apples vs apples.

So score your rhetorical points, just know they don't reflect my argument at all. Of course there are other forms of art other than just digital.

A definition of art that excludes 90% of human history is not exactly a useful nor accurate definition. Words have meanings, who cares what an LLM can do? Its a word with a meaning, and thousands of relevant things that pre-date the invention of the computer screen

I'd say it does affect your argument if you have to use such an incorrect definition so as to exclude so much of humanity's history just to prop up the latest in big tech's attempt to make fetch happen, after NFTs crashed and burned.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Bear in mind, he had an agenda there.

I recall the writing that suggested the OGL from 2000 or 2001 was essentially a protection racket acting benevolent for "giving" you rights you already had, in return for you forfeiting other rights you already had. He definitely had a beef over it.

 

[FrogReaver]

A definition of art that excludes 90% of human history is not exactly a useful nor accurate definition. Words have meanings, who cares what an LLM can do? Its a word with a meaning, and thousands of relevant things that pre-date the invention of the computer screen

Yes, and posts have context. The context of my post was first and foremost comparing LLM 'art' with similar people created art. As such only the digital definition needs to be applied.

I'd say it does affect your argument if you have to use such an incorrect definition so as to exclude so much of humanity's history just to prop up the latest in big tech's attempt to make fetch happen, after NFTs crashed and burned.

For the kinds of art my definition is meant to apply to, it is very useful and absolutely correct. Insisting that one must always use a more universal definition when talking specific subsets in a specific context is not logical.

 

[Morrus]

There's one thing here I don't get.

I know.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know.

Rude.

 

[Morrus]

I recall the writing that suggested the OGL from 2000 or 2001 was essentially a protection racket acting benevolent for "giving" you rights you already had, in return for you forfeiting other rights you already had. He definitely had a beef over it.

I remember!