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

[FrogReaver]

Because outside of very specific circumstances the training still influences its action.

It will not "know" how to do what you tell it without that illicit consumption of protected works, which included in some cases setting fire to books after they were used, torrenting videos and watching porn

Which seems completely irrelevant to the specific topic that was actually being discussed.

 

[bedir than]

Which seems completely irrelevant to the specific topic that was actually being discussed.

The topic of the claim that there was no outside influence from the LLM on the ordered materials that are supposedly not influenced by outside influences despite the makers of the LLMs saying that they did in fact use outside influences even when told not to?

 

[Brendan Byrd]

When an architect designs a house, it's his creation, even though he doesn't do an iota of actual building.

The architect does not own or control the houses built to the design.
The architect’s drawings/designs are protected by copyright though.
The architect will have a legitimate claim if a builder uses the drawings without compensating the architect.

(Usual disclaimers apply…)

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, we're back to the "I asked the five-star chef to make me a dinner, so it's the same as me doing it" phase of your ridiculous position? I'll refer you back to the many previous posts ridiculing that position, and let you loop through that.

I already answered all the chef criticisms. So I’ll as you to loop back through my answers, since you must have missed them.

There’s at least 2 ways to use AI. One is chef give me X dish. I agree that’s not you creating anything.

The other is chef I have a vision for a dish I want to make but no skill to make it. Give me something like X. Okay that wasn’t quite it, instead change X and Y and let’s try again. Nope still not quite it, remove this ingredient and add this other one. That came out perfect! That’s at a collaboration to create something.

 

[bsss]

Creation does not equal ownership…

How that keeps being conflated by so many is baffling.

While you may think this is a gotcha, it is not. But since I seem to need to be explicit, I equally assert the house is not his creation.

 

[FrogReaver]

The topic of the claim that there was no outside influence from the LLM on the ordered materials that are supposedly not influenced by outside influences despite the makers of the LLMs saying that they did in fact use outside influences even when told not to?

Please quote from your previous post where that was ever the context, because I looked and it’s not there.

 

[bedir than]

Please quote from your previous post where that was ever the context, because I looked and it’s not there.

That was the assertion made by the commenter I replied to.

The fact is that every LLM still inserts outside information even when told not to do so.
The absurd claim that continued refinement after the initial work will no longer use outside assets is proven a lie by the very model makers who say that leakage is normal.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Neither. And there is a very real and significant distinction between building and creating. Just because the AI builds what I direct(not ask) it to, doesn't make it the creator. If it's my vision, it's my creation.

So, this is just not how AI art works. If it built an image for which you specified every pixel exactly, then your argument would have merit. However, you would not be using an AI because -- by definition -- they are using intelligence, not "just following direction".

Your prompt for the engine is a fraction of the input that goes into creating the image. The majority of the information in the generated picture is defined by the model itself. Are you a part of the creative process? Of course! But no more so than someone who gives a detailed description of a picture they want a human artist to draw.

Take your prompt for an image -- if you gave that to a human artists and they drew it exactly as you said, no one would doubt, morally and legally, that they were the creator. So it makes no sense for you to claim that simply by giving the same instructions to a computer, suddenly you become the creator.

Now, as all artists know, a client who is good at describing what they need is a great asset -- we're not knocking your ability to describe what you want done -- but it doesn't make you the creator. It makes you a good describer.

 

[bsss]

That’s at a collaboration to create something.

Ideas do not create. Creators create. You can pat yourself on the back for having the idea of a good dish, but someone else created it. "But I want to be credited as the creator too!" is not a compelling argument.

 

[FrogReaver]

That was the assertion made by the commenter I replied to.

I looked and it was not. Thus why I pushed back. It came across as you making a completely irrelevant negative observation.