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

[Bill Zebub]

Determining that the process does not need to be justified is itself an act of justifying the process.

I think The Sphinx said that in Mystery Men.

Or...maybe I'm thinking of Yoda.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Almost no one works that way. It is worlds more practical to make something rough and then refine it iteratively. (Even AI image generators run on many cycles of iterative refinement, from plain procedural noise, albeit not in a human way).

Regarding the power consumptions: I understand MS, Google, and Amazon are supposedly now well on their way to being net zero by the hour or even carbon negative, are they not? That seems a very different direction than burning down rainforests.

Considering AI is resonsible for a massive global spike it total energy use, if they are still on track on paper it is because they are cooking the numbers right alongside the planet.

 

[Maxperson]

And we have many carve outs allowing for using intellectual property you don't actually own or have permission to use.

I'm not aware of any of the fair use exceptions that would apply to AI.

 

[Maxperson]

By this logic the person who places an order at McDonald's is the head chef at head quarters.

Placing an order isn't creative.

That's not the only way to use AI, though. You can reduce AI to just being a tool to create art, just like a paintbrush is a tool for creating art. It's far more in depth than just using a prompt to get it to give you a picture.

 

[Morrus]

the consumer is the only important part of the economy.

This is the oddest thing I've read so far today!

 

[Pale Violet Light]

It's ok! It wasn't very funny. :-/

It was both funny and in very poor taste. I am mostly annoyed you got there before me.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm not aware of any of the fair use exceptions that would apply to AI.

There's only one that applies to the initial scraping, and that requires ascribing personhood to the AI: educational use - violations solely for the purpose of educating a person in techniques.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Board game mechanics are not covered by copyright

IN THE US, that's true. In France and Germany, it's not. Don't assume american peculiarities apply throughout the world.

It's a bit of a tangent, but could you back that up with a citation? My impression is that although the laws are different especially in how they evaluate impact, the basic principle that copyright covers the expression of the rules (the text, images and presentation) but not the underlying ideas and principles -- and that is true in all countries that respect international copyright law. If I am wrong, I'd like to know!

 

[Maxperson]

There's only one that applies to the initial scraping, and that requires ascribing personhood to the AI: educational use - violations solely for the purpose of educating a person in techniques.

Humans aren't being educated by that use, though. The IP is being used to create a better functioning AI for profit.

 

[bedir than]

That's not the only way to use AI, though. You can reduce AI to just being a tool to create art, just like a paintbrush is a tool for creating art. It's far more in depth than just using a prompt to get it to give you a picture.

Your own description of the process you use is merely placing many, many orders -- kind of like an event planner does. That doesn't make them a cook either.