AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Umbran]

Training an AI on an image is not rebroadcasying the image or reprinting the image in any meaningful sense.

You may decide what is "meaningful" for artworks you create, but the point of having rights over artwork is that others DON'T get to make that distinction for you.

Training AI on an image requires electronic reproduction of the image in ways that large companies have used for years to shut down people copying work they own the rights to. There is already legal precedent on the matter.

The issue is asymmetric application of the law.

Not that any of you are going to care, as most of these artists and those of you who support them have made it very clear that the only thing you rrally care about is money, NOT artistic integrity.

With respect, taking in millions of works to drive your computer program without paying any of the artists a red cent for the use is hardly an act of artistic integrity.

 

[Ryujin]

Not to mention that when the only thing that those who are stealing your work care about is money, that's the only point on which you can contend what they're doing.

 

[Guest 85555]

You know Andy Warhol estate was sued successfully for using Prince's image, right?* Might want to find another example before getting on your high horse to pass judgement on why artists and their supporters don't like AI with false assumptions.

*In fact, bringing up Andy Warhol (and the SJC ruling against him) is a huge argument against AI, not for it like you're trying to make it.

I am not so sure this was a great decision nor am I sure it was good for art. To me it feels in the realm of many of the musical copyright decisions that have been quite a problem in recent years (and I do think artists have a right to protect their images from AI if whole images are being used to generate money). But there is value in allowing artists to repurpose imagery, public figures, slips of music or film. Sampling was the foundation of hip hop for example. That was an image that Warhol did in like the 80s and the decision wasn't until recent years. I think there have been many bad copyright legal decisions in recent years and I think we ought to be cautious about where we go with AI in terms of securing protection for artists (on the one hand we want artists to be protected, on the other we don't want to create rules or precedents that actually hurt artists and art in the long term)

 

[Bohandas]

Humans can make art without reference, AI currently cannot. If it wants to use art (and it has to use that art to make anything) it should be done with permission and possible recompense to those who made it, otherwise it's just piracy. But while humans can do things and be transformative, AI really can't because, at the heart, it's just doing an elaborate trace-job.

Ok, then why don't you draw us a map of Sedna, and when we finally get decent detailed photograph of it we'll see how accurate it is

EDIT:
Or anything else that doesn't exist now but that we can be confident will exist in the future; it doesn't have to be a map of Sedna. How about a floorplan of the first working commercial fusion power plant that will ever be built (the entire building, not just thr reactor)? Or a drawing of the lobby?

EDIT:
Can you draw me what Jack the Ripper really looked like? They never caught him but you say you can draw him without a refrence

 

[Guest 85555]

You may decide what is "meaningful" for artworks you create, but the point of having rights over artwork is that others DON'T get to make that distinction for you.

Training AI on an image requires electronic reproduction of the image in ways that large companies have used for years to shut down people copying work they own the rights to. There is already legal precedent on the matter.

The issue is asymmetric application of the law.



With respect, taking in millions of works to drive your computer program without paying any of the artists a red cent for the use is hardly an act of artistic integrity.

I am concerned about AI reusing peoples actual work, especially if it is used to make money. But this area I am not so sure. If we are just using art to teach AI to make completely new art, that isn't too different from how people learn to make art. If the art itself is being used as foundational building blocks would be different (again I think sampling is a legitimate artistic thing to do though so I would want to be careful here). For me this is where the AI arguments get into much more gray territory. I am not 100% clear though on how AI 'learns' and what they means when it produces an image (and I keep hearing conflicting things on this). So the details of that would matter to me

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ok, then why don't you draw us a map of Sedna, and when we finally get decent photograph of it we'll see how accurate it is

I have no idea what Sedna is, but I can still draw something. Using my imagination. That's the point you seem to be missing. AI can't do that. AI can't produce anything without copying existing art into its database to scrape.

 

[Guest 85555]

Humans can make art without reference, AI currently cannot. If it wants to use art (and it has to use that art to make anything) it should be done with permission and possible recompense to those who made it, otherwise it's just piracy. But while humans can do things and be transformative, AI really can't because, at the heart, it's just doing an elaborate trace-job.

I would just point out human art is also referential. We can imagine. And the question I suppose is whether AI can be trained to 'imagine' in a way that is something like how people do

In terms of producing an image from a reference, and creating something new. If it is creating something new that moves people then it is creating something new that moves people. If Ai does it or a human does, that is still transformative. And the more this process gets refined the more we can make AI like human artists I suppose. For me I would say whatever laws apply to human art should apply to AI. If Ai is ripping off images in a way that violates copyright, then that is aporblem. If AI is just guilty of taking inspiration like humans, I fear cracking down on that with new regulations or precedents would ultimately just be used against human artists taking inspiration and transforming work into new things.

 

[Ryujin]

I would just point out human art is also referential. We can imagine. And the question I suppose is whether AI can be trained to 'imagine' in a way that is something like how people do

In terms of producing an image from a reference, and creating something new. If it is creating something new that moves people then it is creating something new that moves people. If Ai does it or a human does, that is still transformative. And the more this process gets refined the more we can make AI like human artists I suppose. For me I would say whatever laws apply to human art should apply to AI. If Ai is ripping off images in a way that violates copyright, then that is aporblem. If AI is just guilty of taking inspiration like humans, I fear cracking down on that with new regulations or precedents would ultimately just be used against human artists taking inspiration and transforming work into new things.

I guess that comes down to whether you consider AI to be transformative, or a granular copy/paste. To my mind it's far more the latter, than the former.

 

[Bohandas]

I have no idea what Sedna is, but I can still draw something. Using my imagination. That's the point you seem to be missing. AI can't do that. AI can't produce anything without copying existing art into its database to scrape.

Sedna is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt. This is the highest resolution photograph we currently have of it

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Sedna_PRC2004-14d.jpg

 

[Umbran]

But there is value in allowing artists to repurpose imagery, public figures, slips of music or film.

If there is value in it, then the original artist deserves to get part of that value. Pay them for the right to sample.

There's a fundamental element of fairness here - if you want to use the labor and talent of another person for your own ends, you should pay for it.