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

[Dyson Logos]

just admit that only companies large enough to pay for such human artists should be in the marketplace.

You realize most of the artists who create this stuff AREN'T large companies, right?

We are individual artists who sell our stuff. We are the exact third party small companies you claim can't compete.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Well, they might have to actually start paying for the right to train, including possibly hiring legions of creators to generate content just for training. Either of which they definitely should have done the first time(s) around. I'm certainly not arguing with that.

[Edit] Nope. I'm wrong. They pushed out a ToS that made it sound like they were doing the below, and then within 2 weeks put out a new ToS that made it explicit they would not be doing that.

[This is ultimately incorrect, it sounded like it was the case and they made it clear it was not, but I missed the update].
Didn't some recent adobe announcement change their ToS that the work you make in Photoshop can be used to train their AI? I forget if there was an opt out, but just by making it opt out they'll harvest a ton of data from people who didn't read the ToS.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Two things. But I feel like I keep saying this over and over and over again. It’s clearly pointless as I'm restating, again, the basic, primary objections to LLMs like it's new news this many months/years into the constant avalanche of identical threads. I find it utterly bizarre that anybody on these forums (or anywhere else, frankly) even vaguely interested in this topic could possibly not know the basic premises of the anti-LLM argument, even if they disagree with them. I certainly know the constantly repeated pro-LLM arguments verbatim, as they get repeated identically time and time again (usually by the same people). But here it is, again, for the record. I'm sure I'll be typing this out again next week.

Like I've said, I've mostly stayed away from these threads.

And there are some issues I care deeply about (such as the mathematics of voting systems) in which I sometimes find it astonishing that anybody who claims to be vaguely interested in the topic (like democracy?) is still unaware of the arguments. So I get it.

On the other hand, I'm also thinking back to some of the debates about orcs and racism, or whether accusations without trial about sexual misbehavior at conventions is sufficient to blacklist an author, or whether we should stop buying from a publisher because they said something bigoted in another context, and realizing that I had the same thought as you have now: "How on earth can you possibly be blind to the obvious logic here? Clearly you just don't want to give up your bigotry and misogyny."

And I pigpiled on, and said some things that, in retrospect, probably should have earned me some Red Text.

So I'm developing some understanding about how at least some of those posters felt. And realizing that attacking them for being Bad People probably (obviously) did little to persuade them.

1) the mass piracy (they've been caught illegally torrenting massive archives of pirated books) and the plagiarism (you can literally see artists' signatures in some of the outputs, which belies the claims that the LLMs are making something new, though they’ve coded the LLMs to hide that better these days)

2) the massive environmental impact with entire power plants being built to power enormous server farms

Both of these things do harm. And until LLMs can operate without doing harm, the process continues to matter.

Got it. Thank you for clarifying "process". I feel similarly about crypto, but I'm not there on AI. Maybe "yet". Not sure.

I would have a problem with an art student pirating millions of books and then burning down a rainforest, too.

True fact: art students can be blamed for some of the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans.

Well, one art student. Former art student.