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

[zakael19]

An ethical discussion in the context of copyright infringement is interesting, because the whole reason we have copyright (and patents) is not because of ethics, or a creator's "natural right" to their work, but because it provides an economic incentive to innovate. That doesn't mean it's unethical to break laws, of course, but I feel like over the last 250 years (mostly in the last 75) the issue has become very clouded, no thanks to Disney lawyers.

And just to make it 100% clear: I'm NOT saying it's ok to steal, or that how LLMs were trained is ok. I'm just pointing out that this idea of "a creator owns their work" has become a moral concept only relatively recently.

On the other hand, that's just what I've read. I'm certainly not an expert on the history of it, and if somebody with real expertise wants to enlighten me, I'm listening.

The idea of "copyright" and intellectual is relatively recent all things considered, evolving relatively shortly after the printing press (but not really protecting authorship and creative works for a little while). However, "morality" was one of its original functions - from a governmental control perspective!

But given that the whole purpose of these big AI companies is not to, like, generate creative works for the hell of it but instead to make enormous quantities of money, far far greater then any of the authors they trained off of will ever see, there's both a legal and moral component here.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what "blanked defended" means and it's certainly not a term I have used. But you have argued in favor of generative AI both in this thread and in many others. I guess gaslighting is one step up from strawmanning, but you're still not there yet. Why not try throwing in a false dilemma or a sneaky little circular argument? Those are far more fun!

None of those are present here. All I have ever argued is that AI can be used as a tool to create. I never gave an opinion of whether I am in favor of AI. That's your invention here. The closest anyone is getting to gaslighting is trying to make me believe that I am in support of AI. I am not and never have been. Given the choice between AI art and human art, I will pick human every time.

Stating facts, that AI can be used as a tool to create art under certain circumstances, is not speaking in favor of it any more than stating that someone shooting a person in the head is speaking in favor of murder.

 

[dead]

I don’t understand how using AI is the same as a paint brush. If you could give the paint brush prompts and it accesses an image database and starts painting for you that might be correct, but the paint brush is just an inanimate object - there’s no 3rd party, no artificial intelligence in it.

And some people are saying they “know exactly” what they want in their mind’s eye and then get the AI to create it. Even a real artist doesn’t “know exactly” what the finished piece will be like down to the last detail before they start. They have an idea and a rough composition but it all starts coming together when they put pen to paper or stylus to tablet - drawing on their talent and skill in the medium from their own mind. For the AI-user, even in a best case scenario where they have an idea and rough outline (most don’t), when they start sending prompt after prompt to the AI, they are relying on an external party - the artificial intelligence - to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

I don’t understand how using AI is the same as a paint brush.

In the sense that both are tools used to produce a result.

If you could give the paint brush prompts and it accesses an image database and starts painting for you that might be correct, but the paint brush is just an inanimate object - there’s no 3rd party, no artificial intelligence in it.

LLM/AI is a bunch of big honking computers running very sophisticated software.
The AI/LLM is not a third party; it is not a sentient person.

The companies/corporations providing access to the LLM/AI tools are third parties.

And some people are saying they “know exactly” what they want in their mind’s eye and then get the AI to create it. Even a real artist doesn’t “know exactly” what the finished piece will be like down to the last detail before they start.

Are you a “real artist”?

They have an idea and a rough composition but it all starts coming together when they put pen to paper or stylus to tablet - drawing on their talent and skill in the medium from their own mind. For the AI-user, even in a best case scenario where they have an idea and rough outline (most don’t), when they start sending prompt after prompt to the AI, they are relying on an external party - the artificial intelligence - to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have been searching and there is an image created by AI that is protected by copyright, "A Single Piece of American Cheese" by Kent Keirsey, CEO of Invoke but because legally it was a "hybrid" work, a collaboration of AI and human artist.

An artistic work could be protected by copyright if a human can prove at least a part of the work has been product of human creativity.

 

[Morrus]

I have been searching and there is an image created by AI that is protected by copyright, "A Single Piece of American Cheese" by Kent Keirsey, CEO of Invoke but because legally it was a "hybrid" work, a collaboration of AI and human artist.

An artistic work could be protected by copyright if a human can prove at least a part of the work has been product of human creativity.

I’m not sure “AI art can be copyrighted if it’s not AI art” is a strong argument.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

I have been searching and there is an image created by AI that is protected by copyright, "A Single Piece of American Cheese" by Kent Keirsey, CEO of Invoke but because legally it was a "hybrid" work, a collaboration of AI and human artist.

An artistic work could be protected by copyright if a human can prove at least a part of the work has been product of human creativity.

< kneejerk reaction >
If that is the case…
Sounds more like an end-run to make a copyright claim on the works produced by the users of an LLM/AI (as a tool provided by the company).
< /kneejerk reaction >