AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Bohandas]

The reason they aren't convincing isn't because "our minds are already made up". They aren't convincing because they are factually wrong about how AI works and are making untrue claims.

You all are the ones making untrue claims. The anti-AI crowd is basically claiming that AI is nothing but google image search repackaged to make it look like its creating the images itself, like some high tech version of Gilderoy Lockhart. And that's simply not true.

Or failing that you claim that human made images and stories have some intangible quality that goes beyond the ones and zeroes that make up the file. And at that point you're just straight up positing the existence of magic

 

[Scribe]

The anti-AI crowd is basically claiming that AI is nothing but google image search repackaged to make it look like its creating the images itself, like some high tech version of Gilderoy Lockhart. And that's simply not true.

Uh...no.

Or failing that you claim that human made images and stories have some intangible quality that goes beyond the ones and zeroes that make up the file. And at that point you're just straight up positing the existence of magic

I'd say that creation does have intangible quality, but I dont believe that qualifies as the existence of 'magic'.

 

[Bohandas]

Also, if its not art, and it can't copy the alleged intangible aspects of human art because it's just a machine, then being a machine it's not under the purview of copyright law anyway. If you don't want someone to build a machine based on your idea you have to patent it, not copyright it.

(And I'd be fine with that as a compromise as patent law has much more sensible restrictions, such as being limited to 20 years instead of forever and a day)

EDIT:
Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that the limit for copyright is not literally "forever and a day". The point is that it might as well be. It's longer than a human lifetime. In fact, it's almost two human lifetimes, unless the author dies young, or was already very old to when they wrote the work.

EDIT:
It almost makes you want to thank the powers that be for the 27 club

 

[Bohandas]

"Meta" (what a dumb ass name, right up there with "X"), Microsoft, Amazon, and the billions being dumped into companies like openAI.

People need to remove the wool from their eyes if they think this tech is going to be 'for the people'.

Ok, fine, but at the very least it can either be corporate trash right away or only become corporate trash after 15 years of en****ification. And if this crowd gets their way it's going to go the corporate-trash-immediately route

 

[Bohandas]

Also there seems to be some conflation going on here between high art and consumer art. High art is for touchy feely personal expressuon. But the purpose of consumer media is to entertain. To hold as it were the mirror up to nature with a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

That especially goes for corporate produced media. Corporate media is heartless. Corporate media is soulless. It has been since long before AI came on the scene. Regardless of whether the intangibles are there or not or how you value them a Hollywood sequel or a chart topping pop song is never going to have them, no matter who or what writes it.

And as for high art, this will never replace high art, because with high art the touchy feely is what you're paying for

 

[trappedslider]

Why a Chinese court's landmark decision recognising the copyright for an AI-generated image benefits creators in this nascent field

A Chinese court's decision recognising the copyright of an image generated via artificial intelligence (AI) aims to encourage such creations and provide a boost to this nascent industry, according to the judge who made the landmark ruling. In the first judgment of its kind in mainland China, the...

www.yahoo.com

The court subsequently ruled in favour of Li. It said Li's AI-generated image was an artwork, based on how he had continuously added prompts and repeatedly adjusted the parameters to come up with a picture that reflected his "aesthetic choice and personalised judgment".

Well, i guess the judge is wrong lol

 

[Bohandas]

Why a Chinese court's landmark decision recognising the copyright for an AI-generated image benefits creators in this nascent field

A Chinese court's decision recognising the copyright of an image generated via artificial intelligence (AI) aims to encourage such creations and provide a boost to this nascent industry, according to the judge who made the landmark ruling. In the first judgment of its kind in mainland China, the...

www.yahoo.com

Well, i guess the judge is wrong lol

As much as I like to boost AI, that ruling came from a government that doesn't have the greatest reputation for being just. I'm not sure any sort of moral or artistic truth can be extracted from it either way

Nor any legal truth that would apply beyond their cultural sphere of influence

EDIT:
Hell, even if it was an American court or some European country or somewhere in the Commonwealth I'd still steer clear of using it as the basis for any sort of moral conclusion. Although the legal side of it would likely be more relevant to most people here.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You all are the ones making untrue claims.

What have I said is untrue? I said AI takes images without permissions and copies them to a database to be scraped. I said AI can't produce anything without having a database of images. I even provided quotes from the Midjourney founder himself, Meta, and OpenAI all saying they are taking copyrighted material without permission.

That's all true. I'm sorry, but the facts don't agree with you here, and accusing someone of making untrue claims without evidence isn't a compelling argument. I realize I accused you of making false claims, and then directly proved to you why they were false.

The anti-AI crowd is basically claiming that AI is nothing but google image search repackaged to make it look like its creating the images itself, like some high tech version of Gilderoy Lockhart. And that's simply not true.

This is a strawman, and is a big red flag that you don't have an actual argument to stand on. For one, I'm not anti-AI (it has a lot of benefits, particularly in research and analysis). I (and others) are anti-AI (AI companies rather) stealing the work from creators without permission or compensation.

Or failing that you claim that human made images and stories have some intangible quality that goes beyond the ones and zeroes that make up the file. And at that point you're just straight up positing the existence of magic

Again, strawman and is not true. What I and others have said is that we can create something without having a database. I was asked to draw something, and even if I don't know what it is, I can use my imagination to come up with something; anything. AI can't do that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why a Chinese court's landmark decision recognising the copyright for an AI-generated image benefits creators in this nascent field

A Chinese court's decision recognising the copyright of an image generated via artificial intelligence (AI) aims to encourage such creations and provide a boost to this nascent industry, according to the judge who made the landmark ruling. In the first judgment of its kind in mainland China, the...

www.yahoo.com

Well, i guess the judge is wrong lol

Forgive me if I don't put much stock in the ruling of AI and copyrights from a country known for stealing IP and selling knock-offs. I put more weight into a US court, which has ruled that you can't copyright AI art.

In fact, even AI companies state you can't copyright anything you produce using their programs.

 

[Bohandas]

I've had a bit of a think and I feel that I will partially recant on the issue of artistic intangibles. It occurred tome that in the Jackass movies, the stunts in the main portion of the movie that they actually do are much more entertaining than the obviously CG stunts in the opening and closing credits primarily for the pure fact of them actually having done them, rather than any difference in appearance (although there is a visible difference, this accounts for the lesser part of the difference in entertainment value).

That said, I'm pretty sure that a few of the main stunts are faked as well, because one of the pranks in one of the movies takes place during them faking a stunt that they've given up on. And whichever ones are faked aren't diminished in entertainment value because I can't tell which ones, and there's at least the impression that any given stunt in the main body of the movie is more likely real than fake and that suffices