Necropolitan
Hero
The "common man" is being harmed by having their intellectual property stolen by AI creators.
The victims here are artists, not AI creators.
California bill (AB 412) would effectively ban open-source generative AI
- Thread starter trappedslider
- Start date
The victims here are artists, not AI creators.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I think they were talking about the users of generative AI.
There are lots of things each of us cannot afford. We have not yet achieved a reliable post-scarcity world, so some things will be out of reach.
At the moment? Because you would be raising yourself up on the backs of other humans who you have not paid for their efforts in order to get your pretty artwork.
You see, those artists have car payments, medical bills, high housing costs, just like you do! Why should you get what you want at the expense of their livelihood?
Indeed. Yet technological progress make many thing that were otherwise unaffordable or expensive, available to all. Fast-fashion wouldn't be possible if all clothes were tailor-made, among many other.
For the same reason we adopted machine-made clothings and replaced tailoring with a machine. You might not like how a specific machine is made, but the goal of replacing human work by more affordable machine work is totally acceptable. I guess you wouldn't like an ethically trained AI if you object job replacement by technology as a principle.
I'll eagerly await your herald bearing your scroll of parchment in return.
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.
Technology creating a wasteful industry may not be a convincing example.
You have missed the salient point. The issue is not that artists will be replaced. The issue is that the artists' work was taken without permission or recompense, and then used it to replace the artists.
It is only affordable because the art that it requires to function was not properly paid for. The only reason you can whine about not getting cheap art is that very wealthy companies stiffed the artists for you.
Your guess would be in incorrect. I have said many times over on these boards that if the art were properly licensed - say, the artists got royalties for the use of AI trained on their work - I would have no problem with it.
trappedslider
Legend
Do I need to pay an artist if i train myself on their work?
The question was "is this desired?" It is, since well, nothing forces people to buy clothes they don't need. So they desire it. There is no reason to expect people's will to consume to align with environmental consideration like the amount of wastes.
Also, yes, I do think it's a good thing that people can have more clothes to wear if that's what they want and can own more than one Sunday dress. Having to spend a significant part of their income of clothes and waiting months for them is a thing of the past, which I don't regret. I welcome ready-to-wear, machine-made fashion, even if I recognize that bespoke suits are more comfortable to wear.
I share your concern than one-click buying might lead to wasting resources if people start storing huge amounts of clothes they never wear. But it's an excessive use of a perfectly acceptable solution that has led to the reduction of the number of tailors. Excessive use of anything is bad.
I didn't miss it. I have noticed that the post I responded to seemed to be mixing two things together:
1. Some AI are trained on scraped data, which you oppose.
2. This technology might at some point replace a lot of artists (much like tailors disappeared), which you seemed to oppose, too.
Claiming that it will hurt (or remove) artists is a different problem than complaining (or, should I say, whining, to quote your language) about how the AI model was made. These are different problems, calling for different solutions.
I probably misinterpreted you when thinking that the disappearance of artists was something you opposed.
Adobe Firefly was trained entirely on data Adobe owns the rights to. Since they don't fall into the category you mention, they can freely replace artists, which is a posible outcome of AI technology, not that of the fact that many models are trained on scraped data. The "artist not being able to pay their bills" problem is disconnected from the way the AI models are trained. It will stay even if the problem with acquiring data is solved.
Also, I guess you're using a generic you, since I only use open-source, free models. I don't see a reason to pay a very wealthy company for anything there. Ironically, giving the artists a share of the revenue made out of free models (which is 0) wouldn't solve any of the two problems.
Nice. I agree with that, by the way, except that I consider the EU TDM directive (or other legally-mandated exception to copyright applicable in other parts of the world) to be an example of a proper licensing, among other methods: acquiring the rights from each individual artists, a collective rights management system, and so on... but the principle is the same, we don't have a problem with the technology, as long as the data used for training is properly obtained.
I am paradoxically more concerned about finding a solution to the technology-driven job replacement since I feel most jobs might end up replaced by technology at some point. We were lucky that the agricultural revolution allowed people to work in other manual craft, that the industrial revolution freed people to work in service, but I am concerned that we might end up without new needs for people work in the future and we still have a significant part of our wealth-distribution system based on work.
Last edited:
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
What about all of those who feel that lawsuits should happen? That the companies that are profiting from it return some of those billions to those whose material made it possible?
It's like saying "Well, this guy murdered someone, but putting him in jail won't bring them back, can't put that cat back in the bag, so it's a half-baked idea to have a law against it."
BookTenTiger
He / Him
Let's follow this through.
If you want to train yourself on an artist's work, how do you do this? You might go to a museum and study the work. You might take a class. You might get art books from a store or the library. You might go online to sites that host an artist's work.
If you aren't relying on stolen work, then somehow the artist has been compensated. They've been paid by a publisher or a gallery or their work has been purchased or you are directly paying them as a teacher. Even if you get art books from a library, that library had to purchase the book which puts money back in the publisher's hands so they can pay future artists.
So yes. When you study the work of artists, somehow they are getting paid or have been paid.
gnarlygninja
Adventurer
It is very difficult to take your appeals to the common man angle seriously when in almost each of these posts you seem very willing to screw over the common man in the exact same ways you're criticizing, then defend it with "well, rich people can do it so why shouldn't I?" The answer to why you shouldn't do it is the same as why they shouldn't do it.