AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Guest 85555]

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.

To me it would be about the result. The AI I have seen so far isn't transformative. More strange and unusual. But I am guessing this stuff is advancing at a rapid pace to the point where AI might become more transformative. The point I am making is if it is granular enough it is effectively creating something new, we ought to be careful because I would worry how that might rebound on human artists simply taking inspiration or sampling

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

It depends on what you are sampling though. If I play two notes on a record our to twenty and someone samples those two notes and combines it with other things to make something entirely new, in my mind I didn't really do anything where I am owed as an artist. On the other hadn't, if a whole melody line is taken that might be different. With sampling and hip hop for example, I think sometimes things have become too restrictive (though I also can see there have been clear cases where a person effectively just stole a song and put a new vocal track over it). With AI, I would say it depends on how granular this is

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

I mean, sure, I could. You might not like it, but I could at least make something. AI can't make anything without the works of others. If you give it a prompt and nothing to scrap, it can create nothing.

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?

Sure! Again, I can just do that. I don't need references. You can disagree with my drawing, but I can still make it.

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

Sure! I can totally do that. Again, you can disagree with me, but I don't need any inputs to attempt that.

Really, this whole line of argumentation is a great way to prove my point: I can totally create things without a reference! Not a problem! I'm not going to be good at it because I'm not particularly artistic, but I can do it. AI couldn't if you didn't feed it any art.

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

Sure, but right now it clearly can't. That is the thing: it can only reference right now.

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 mean, currently speaking we can't copyright AI artworks because it has no creator, so I wonder if it also stands to reason that something without a creator can't transform something. It's an interesting argument, to be sure, but I don't really think it's what we should be talking about. More than that, I find this is more about the ethics of art: if your machine can't work without someone else's art, they deserve to be compensated. Right now it's just rich techbros doing large-scale piracy.

 

[Ryujin]

To me it would be about the result. The AI I have seen so far isn't transformative. More strange and unusual. But I am guessing this stuff is advancing at a rapid pace to the point where AI might become more transformative. The point I am making is if it is granular enough it is effectively creating something new, we ought to be careful because I would worry how that might rebound on human artists simply taking inspiration or sampling

But you can get to the same result through righteous, or morally questionable methods. Music sampling was mentioned. You have to get permission to sample the music of someone else, in order to incorporate it into your work. Doing otherwise can result in legal issues.

 

[Guest 85555]

But you can get to the same result through righteous, or morally questionable methods. Music sampling was mentioned. You have to get permission to sample the music of someone else, in order to incorporate it into your work. Doing otherwise can result in legal issues.

I understand. I am saying a lot of people feel we have gone too far enforcing copryight on samples because people are effectively using it more in a way a mosaicist does. Also, very importantly, rarelybis it the artists themselves pushing for or receiving payment in music copyright. It is often companies and estates. Personally I think we have reached a pretty bad place with music copyright. To the point where I am glad I am no longer making music

 

[Bohandas]

Also, while I still believe that the idea that the AI is just cutting up and rearranging preexisting works is misleading and overly simplistic, even if we were to accept that explanation how come when an AI does it it's "piracy" but when William S. Burroughs does it he's a "genius"

EDIT:
Or anyone who's made a collage, for that matter

 

[Bohandas]

Also I should clarify lest some of my posts be misinterpreted, I'm not trying to be anti-Warhol or anti-William S. Burroughs or anti-collage. I'm just pointing out a double standard

 

[Umbran]

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.

1) There is a separate concept of Fair Use for educational purposes.
2) Generative AIs are not people. Teaching them does not count as Fair Use.

 

[Umbran]

Also, while I still believe that the idea that the AI is just cutting up and rearranging preexisting works is misleading and overly simplistic, even if we were to accept that explanation how come when an AI does it it's "piracy" but when William S. Burroughs does it he's a "genius"

Burroughs wasn't living in a digital age.

To defend their own profits, large companies (especially, but not only, several in the music industry) have led us to define making a digital copy of an artwork as piracy. Complaints about generative AI are merely asking for the same protections large companies already enjoy.

So, by all means, go to those companies, and lobby them to stop protecting their rights in digital media. See how that goes.

 

[Bohandas]

I mean, sure, I could. You might not like it, but I could at least make something. AI can't make anything without the works of others. If you give it a prompt and nothing to scrap, it can create nothing.


Sure! Again, I can just do that. I don't need references. You can disagree with my drawing, but I can still make it.

You could draw me a planet or a spooky looking englishman, but that's the same thing the AI would give me. You can't correctly give me any of the details because you haven't seen them.