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

[Umbran]

A tool is a tool is a tool...

Sorry, but that's an unfounded assertion.

Tools are NOT necessarily without their own ethical implications. Tools can be made or acquired unethically, or have costs or consequences that make their use unethical.

You actually have to establish that the tool is itself ethically uncomplicated before you say that. Most of the time, we gloss over that bit. But given the sourcing, and impacts of the tool's development, creation, and use, it should not be blithely assumed for generative AI tools.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, but that's an unfounded assertion.

Tools are NOT necessarily without their own ethical implications. Tools can be made or acquired unethically, or have costs or consequences that make their use unethical.

Not a single person has disputed this. Not one.

Here's an explicit example from @Maxperson

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.

 

[Umbran]

Not a single person has disputed this. Not one.

Except, he just made an assertion that did.

Here's an explicit example from @Maxperson

"A tool is a tool is a tool..." Also from Maxperson. Like, right there. The thing I was responding to, which says someting very different.

It isn't my fault if now he now says something inconsistent with a prior argument.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but that's an unfounded assertion.

Tools are NOT necessarily without their own ethical implications. Tools can be made or acquired unethically, or have costs or consequences that make their use unethical.

Sure. I agree with that. My position is looking solely at whether or not using AI as a tool to meet an artists vision creates art, not whether it is was created ethically or not. I don't believe AI is currently an ethical too and I don't generally use it. It can however be used to create art.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That misses the point completely. The concept of fairness still covered the concept of theft in general, which would cover as much of the human span as we currently know.

So you're choosing an abstract, theoretical idea about "theft in general", and how you think people probably felt about how it would apply to ideas and creativity, over the historical record, in which concepts we would identify as intellectual property didn't (as far as I've been able to uncover) even exist until the Enlightenment, and even then it seemed to be driven by publishers' claims that they owned the material, not the authors?

Somehow I think if there existed Egyption or Greek writings about intellectual property, you would be latching onto it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except, he just made an assertion that did.



"A tool is a tool is a tool..." Also from Maxperson. Like, right there. The thing I was responding to, which says someting very different.

It isn't my fault if now he now says something inconsistent with a prior argument.

There's nothing inherently in even that statement that implies what you are reading into it.

 

[Maxperson]

Except, he just made an assertion that did.



"A tool is a tool is a tool..." Also from Maxperson. Like, right there. The thing I was responding to, which says someting very different.

It isn't my fault if now he now says something inconsistent with a prior argument.

Except that the context of my arguments been from my second post in this thread, whether it can be used as a tool to create art. Going into the ethical considerations is going outside the context of my arguments.

Looking only at whether it can be used to create art, it's just a tool like any other. Outside of that, yes, I agree that it is an unethical tool.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be explicit: one can view Generative AI as being able to be used as a tool to create art in some contexts, while still believing the tool is unethical for various reasons (energy use, sourcing opyrighted works, etc).

 

[Justice and Rule]

So you're choosing an abstract, theoretical idea about "theft in general", and how you think people probably felt about how it would apply to ideas and creativity, over the historical record, in which concepts we would identify as intellectual property didn't (as far as I've been able to uncover) even exist until the Enlightenment, and even then it seemed to be driven by publishers' claims that they owned the material, not the authors?

You're missing the point: the idea of intellectual property wasn't created out of whole cloth. It was an evolution on ideas that had already been there. The idea that this is somehow something completely new misses that these things relate to long-held ideas of theft and fairness that were engrained in human society long before they came about, and came about because the conditions had suddenly created an imbalance that needed to be corrected: suddenly we had companies that could produce things that could be stolen by others and produced. This was less of a problem when we weren't talking about world-wide trade empires, but with the growth of industrialization, the printing press, etc... the need for such a thing to ensure fairness and innovation are what pushed these laws into existence.

Somehow I think if there existed Egyption or Greek writings about intellectual property, you would be latching onto it.

I mean, sure, but I'd still be relating it back to the larger concept anyways.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're missing the point: the idea of intellectual property wasn't created out of whole cloth. It was an evolution on ideas that had already been there. The idea that this is somehow something completely new misses that these things relate to long-held ideas of theft and fairness that were engrained in human society long before they came about, and came about because the conditions had suddenly created an imbalance that needed to be corrected: suddenly we had companies that could produce things that could be stolen by others and produced. This was less of a problem when we weren't talking about world-wide trade empires, but with the growth of industrialization, the printing press, etc... the need for such a thing to ensure fairness and innovation are what pushed these laws into existence.

I think your history here is so far off that until that gets corrected we are never going to reach any semblance of agreement here.

Note: I would post the gen-ai summary of the historical context, but i believe that would be against the rules now.