Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anon Adderlan" data-source="post: 9366180" data-attributes="member: 53053">So the latest artist being 'accused' of using AI is... <a href="https://archive.is/wu298" target="_blank">Dennis Detwiller</a>.The problem isn't the technology, it's the witch hunt surrounding it, fueled by profound ignorance and hypocrisy, which I can assure you only hurts the artist caught in the crossfire. And if Big Tech manages to gain control by virtue of being the only ones with access to enough 'ethically sourced' training data, it won't be just a few artists who are out of work, but all of them.That's quite the wooey answer for someone claiming to not be wooey.Not sure such a reductive view is useful here as all computing breaks down into if/then concepts.They already are, and artists are being attacked for using them in this manner.Might want to put that 'ethical' in airquotes considering how Big Tech got access to that data in the first place.So how do you propose we prove a model was ethically sourced?It might surprise you to know that many artists don't consent to having their work enter the public domain either, it's just never an issue because the legal protections have been extended to such an obscene degree.They already did by virtue of having users sign EULAs in exchange for using their services. And these systems don't have to be owned by corporations. There's a huge opportunity to democratize this technology, but that's not going to happen if folks keep attacking each other for ideological reasons.So how do you propose they request consent to learn from what they observe?And none of the things the Antis are demanding can be implemented without upending this entire framework.I guarantee it's going to replace some artists, and produce new artists, just like every other technological advancement has. So do you consider all such advancement immoral? Because that's the only interpretation here.And it's only getting worse somehow. My friends AI forgot how to turn on a light after an update.Despite what Antis claim it's never been about the money.Always are. Question is who pays them.And when such errors impact the health and welfare of others there should be no ethical issue with using the best tools for the job.There are no easy answers here, which is why we shouldn't be demanding any.Depends entirely on the message board. For example, rights are shared between the platform and contributor on #Reddit.Good question, though the GDPR Right to Erasure laws suggest sites must delete your data on request.Is this true [USER=1]@Morrus[/USER]?I've luckily never encountered this issue in the wild, and know many artists who post prototypes in an effort to court funding.I've noticed this too, and chalked it up to the decay of search and ideological motives which don't prioritize game design at all. And now that the Burn's OmniNet is sweeping the internet for training data there's even less reason to post meaningful content publicly.That was apparent the minute we started protecting computer code through copyright.And I guarantee the heavy hitters will be taking advantage of this public reaction.Funny you mention that, as slavery in America could not have ended without automation like this.Eventually you'll be able to ask an AI to generate an entire RPG, and which point I agree. Meanwhile generated images serve important roles in otherwise human written books besides simply being there, such as providing a visual way to index content.Most of the images on #Pinterest are 'stolen' to begin with.Completely false. The entire basis of copyright is preventing others from making copies, not using them. And unless you intend to criminalize transformative works, referencing models, and caching data there's no coherent legal basis to enforce such an interpretation.In other words Big Tech is the only one in a position to act ethically.On the contrary, the accuracy depends entirely on the quality of the training data, and why anyone thinks training on the slurry of the internet will lead to coherent answers is beyond me.</blockquote>

Verification