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

[FrogReaver]

Stop immediately editing these little bits on to the end of your posts so that my quote posts will miss them.

I add it (within at most a few minutes) because I want to say it. Not so that you won't be able to reply to it (not that such would have worked anyways...)

 

[Umbran]

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.

In considering art, I don't think you get to unilaterally draw hard lines around context. That you gave an argument and assumed that it was only to be considered from certain angles is not binding upon me.

 

[FrogReaver]

In considering art, I don't think you get to unilaterally draw hard lines around context. That you gave an argument and assumed that it was only to be considered from certain angles is not binding upon me.

Is this an argument in favor of replying while ignoring all context?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't believe I said that I would reject it out of hand, I simply pointed out the obvious: AI posts aren't reliable and I've seen them as such when it gets to problems that aren't directly addressed in text. This is also why it's a big problem in law and why it hallucinates cases.

Isn't the point of pointing that out this way to dismiss whatever it says in entirety out of hand? What other purpose does this objection with no additional context serve?

If you want to correct me, you could just have a better argument. Arguing that copyright doesn't relate to the idea of theft or that it doesn't relate to that long-time value misses why we have it and how it is used.

Which part?

That it's a moral right? Virtually no major philosopher comes close to agreeing with that.
That the history of copyright protection was never centered around it being a moral right?

 

[Umbran]

Is this an argument in favor of replying while ignoring all context?

Why do you ask?

 

[Bill Zebub]

That the history of copyright protection was never centered around it being a moral right?

And certainly that's inarguably true in terms of its origin in U.S. law.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why do you ask?

Was surprised because it sounded like it was but from knowing you it would have been something I had thought you'd have disagreed with.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Isn't the point of pointing that out this way to dismiss whatever it says in entirety out of hand? What other purpose does this objection with no additional context serve?

No, it's to point out that your method of research has problems and you should probably understand those problems when you are going into it rather than trying to just post it and learn about it after the fact. AI summaries can be accurate, but the more abstract stuff is where it runs into the most trouble: when you are asking it to try and interpret stuff or look for something that isn't already spelled out in the text, it starts trying to make stuff up to get a response.

Which part?

That it's a moral right? Virtually no major philosopher comes close to agreeing with that.
That the history of copyright protection was never centered around it being a moral right?

The history of copyright protection is to protect against theft, which is also why we often refer to it as "piracy". Which, again, relates it back to traditional rules and the expansion thereof: we had rules for physical property theft because that was something that mattered very early in human history. We didn't need to worry about intellectual property theft for a while, largely because the conditions didn't make it into a real problem until industrialization.

Like, the argument you are making is the sort of argument that would say that the internet isn't bound by free speech rules because it was not conceived or spelled out at the time of the Founders. And yet, somehow, we realize that a new concept is still related to old concepts; we have new modes of communication, but we still want to apply old ideas to them.

I would say if you want to boldly assert that this idea came out of whole cloth, completely unrelated to the idea of theft or rightful ownership (which, again, creates the relation to theft), then post your evidence. You ever try asking your AI to tell you its sources so that you can track them down and use them yourself? Google summaries do contain links, after all.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And certainly that's inarguably true in terms of its origin in U.S. law.

Eh, U.S. law comes from English law, and the Statute of Anne from 1710 disagrees. In particular:

"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:"

That would rather directly talk about the impact on people and how this is theft.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it's to point out that your method of research has problems and you should probably understand those problems when you are going into it rather than trying to just post it and learn about it after the fact. AI summaries can be accurate, but the more abstract stuff is where it runs into the most trouble: when you are asking it to try and interpret stuff or look for something that isn't already spelled out in the text, it starts trying to make stuff up to get a response.

"Has problems". No not really. I already take everything on the internet with a grain of salt including AI and google search results. I've found not much has really changed in terms of needed carefulness for correct/incorrect information. That said, I'm not writing an academic or legal paper. The need for accuracy above all else in this context is far less crucial. If something is major wrong, it will be challenged quickly and I'll dig into the veracity of those challenges.

The history of copyright protection is to protect against theft, which is also why we often refer to it as "piracy". Which, again, relates it back to traditional rules and the expansion thereof: we had rules for physical property theft because that was something that mattered very early in human history. We didn't need to worry about intellectual property theft for a while, largely because the conditions didn't make it into a real problem until industrialization.

That's an understandable fiction, but isn't how things historically went down. We can probably at least agree on a basic timeline.

Like, the argument you are making is the sort of argument that would say that the internet isn't bound by free speech rules because it was not conceived or spelled out at the time of the Founders. And yet, somehow, we realize that a new concept is still related to old concepts; we have new modes of communication, but we still want to apply old ideas to them.

Howso?

I would say if you want to boldly assert that this idea came out of whole cloth, completely unrelated to the idea of theft or rightful ownership (which, again, creates the relation to theft), then post your evidence. You ever try asking your AI to tell you its sources so that you can track them down and use them yourself? Google summaries do contain links, after all.

I'll tell you what, I'll find you a source. In the meantime, why don't you quote my your source?