California bill (AB 412) would effectively ban open-source generative AI

[MoonSong]

So the only thing this will accomplish is screwing over the common man. That is the one and only difference it will make. Why would you want to take something that could be a boon to everyone and turn it into something that only benefits the 1%?

So far most of the people affected are from the 99%. Most of the scrapped material comes from small creators. I'm sure scrappers have barely touched big media property.

Yeah that could drive the price up so high it could become as overpriced as human writers and artists, completely completing the cost-cutting benefit of this technology and making bespoke writing and artwork once again the exclusive purview of the rich elite who can afford to throw their money away.

I can't afford to comission an artist! I have car payments and medical bills and a crappy low wage job! But I can easily afford a subscription to artbreeder and NovelAI. Why should I be denied that just because I'm not rich

Good and bad news with this. You can enjoy these tools for now at a substantially reduced cost. The only reason you can afford them is because you are being subsidized by investors. These companies bleed money, and once investor money dries up they'll close shop or will rise prices to something that better reflects their operation costs. (And I mean at least 5 times more expensive, though 10 to 20 is more likely)

But hey, if you can spare $60 a month, you can afford to pay an artist form time to time. That can buy you 4-12 commisioned pieces -or at least it used to, due to AI many artists hace abandoned the low-end of the commision market -.

Most of the stuff that's copyrighted now should be public domain but the big media companies keep bribing congress to extend the duration of copyrights. If it lasted a reasonable amount of time like patents do I'd be with you, but not under the farcical current laws where copyrights can easily last two entire lifetimes

That's a different discussion, and a bit of a whataboutism. Copyright laws aren't perfect but at least they protect small creators from being crushed by big media conglomerates.

 

[MoonSong]

You say that as if it is a good thing. Fast-fashion is inexorably tied to disposable fashion, and the waste of enegy and income that the yearly turnover of fashion generates.

Also, clothes making still requires human labor despite the machines. (And relatively skilled)

 

[MoonSong]

I'll note that Deviant has taken the side of the users but they also note that : In actuality, an AI generator looks at millions of images to understand shapes, patterns, and colors – similar to how an artist might search the web for photos of a tiger before drawing their own tiger – and then creates a brand-new image. They have also put in their own generator so

Which is a reason artists have left DA in droves.

 

[trappedslider]

I think they were specifically talking about the "most stuff under copyright should be in the public domain" part, not the part about companies continuously extending the duration (although the last time they tried, it failed)

ah, that makes more sense. I do and will always find a bit of irony in how society goes from "the companies are evil for wanting to extend copy right" to "copy right protections should be recognized and adhered to"

As I've pointed out in similar threads on this topic, I remember the mockery that Metallica got for wanting to sue Napster, along with the near panic of when the MPAA went after The Pirate bay and others.

And now we've swung to being pro-copyright, I wonder how long it will last till the pendulum swings back. Or what event will cause it. it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

ah, that makes more sense. I do and will always find a bit of irony in how society goes from "the companies are evil for wanting to extend copy right" to "copy right protections should be recognized and adhered to"

As I've pointed out in similar threads on this topic, I remember the mockery that Metallica got for wanting to sue Napster, along with the near panic of when the MPAA went after The Pirate bay and others.

And now we've swung to being pro-copyright, I wonder how long it will last till the pendulum swings back. Or what event will cause it. it.

I think you may be mixing pro-copyright with pro-big-business and it's not the same thing at all. If Sly Flourish's work was used without compensation to create a tool that now a company is now making money off of, Sly Flourish should be informed and paid. That's not pro-big-business, it's pro-creator.

As far as I can tell, that's the issue this new law is being created to address.

Any argument against that is really confusing to me.

 

[Scribe]

I think you may be mixing pro-copyright with pro-big-business and it's not the same thing at all. If Sly Flourish's work was used without compensation to create a tool that now a company is now making money off of, Sly Flourish should be informed and paid. That's not pro-big-business, it's pro-creator.

As far as I can tell, that's the issue this new law is being created to address.

Any argument against that is really confusing to me.

Exactly, I dont see how this is difficult at all.

 

[trappedslider]

I think you may be mixing pro-copyright with pro-big-business and it's not the same thing at all. If Sly Flourish's work was used without compensation to create a tool that now a company is now making money off of, Sly Flourish should be informed and paid. That's not pro-big-business, it's pro-creator.

As far as I can tell, that's the issue this new law is being created to address.

Any argument against that is really confusing to me.

I didn't realize that Metallica was big business, also a number of companies own the actual copy rights and not the creators hence my slight amusement.

In this case at least to me a rising tide really would lift all boats.