The AI Red Scare is only harming artists and needs to stop.

[Prime_Evil]

This is where I will have to disagree, as the most current research from MIT concludes that gen-ai tools help lower skilled workers more than those that are already working at the highest professional levels.

It certainly helps low-skill workers, but it actually starts to hinder top tier workers as they actually possess professional training and are (currently) more skilled than gen-ai tools.

This is my impression too. Those with established skills in a domain get better results from an AI than a newcomer. This hold true for image, text, and code generation at least. It's partly because those with subject matter expertise create more precise prompts. And it's partly because they detect when the outputs are wonky and correct them. I've seen examples where a skilled programmer has taken raw code produced by an AI and improved it by applying their experience. In these cases, the AI augments rather than replaces human skill. I suspect this will become the norm across many industries within a decade. I don't think generative AI will replace human artists, but it will gradually get integrated into their workflows.

 

[aramis erak]

::blink::

I'd have thought posts on an open public forum that anyone can read (such as for example this post on this forum) would be considered public domain at time of posting.

Not under US law.
Everything written (fixed in form) is copyrighted by the author the moment it's written.
The Librarian of Congress (the US regulator) long ago decided electronic files count as fixed form.

That, and there's a case to be made (and I really hope one of these days someone makes it in a way that'll stick) that the entire internet is and should always be public domain. Want to retain copyright? Don't put it online.

Would be nice, but would violate a lot of nations' laws. The time for that would have been about 1975 or so... too late now.

 

[Aldarc]

::blink::

I'd have thought posts on an open public forum that anyone can read (such as for example this post on this forum) would be considered public domain at time of posting.

That, and there's a case to be made (and I really hope one of these days someone makes it in a way that'll stick) that the entire internet is and should always be public domain. Want to retain copyright? Don't put it online.

Your first major misconception is that this is an open public forum. And your "case to be made" has absolutely horrendous implications that I'm worried that you haven't bothered thinking through all the way. It would certainly discourage creatives or nearly anyone from posting anything on the internet. It would render a lot of the internet as a plague to be avoided if you have any interest in retaining any sense of ownership of what you write, do, or make. I'll just thank God that you aren't a policy maker if you believe that this would be a good thing.

 

[Necropolitan]

Look at the nature of the discussion here...

Being justifiably criticized and fact-checked isn't persecution.

::blink::

I'd have thought posts on an open public forum that anyone can read (such as for example this post on this forum) would be considered public domain at time of posting.

That, and there's a case to be made (and I really hope one of these days someone makes it in a way that'll stick) that the entire internet is and should always be public domain. Want to retain copyright? Don't put it online.

You're outright admitting this entire thing is about not wanting to pay for labor.

 

[Umbran]

I'd have thought posts on an open public forum that anyone can read (such as for example this post on this forum) would be considered public domain at time of posting.

A common thought, but incorrect.

The fact that one makes access easy and free right now does not, in any way, shape, or form, equate to giving up one's rights to determine what is done with it in the future.

That, and there's a case to be made (and I really hope one of these days someone makes it in a way that'll stick) that the entire internet is and should always be public domain. Want to retain copyright? Don't put it online.

Well, as a very practical matter, that doesn't work, because it screws folks whose material is placed on the internet by someone else without permission. No, entry into the public domain should not ever be passive or assumed. It should only be considered valid by specific act and statement by the rights holder.

 

[Umbran]

I'll just thank God that you aren't a policy maker if you believe that this would be a good thing.

Hey. Don't make it personal. Thanks.

 

[Epic Meepo]

No, entry into the public domain should not ever be passive or assumed. It should only be considered valid by specific act and statement by the rights holder.

Or by the passage of time. No one should be able to hold onto their IP forever.

 

[Lanefan]

Your first major misconception is that this is an open public forum. And your "case to be made" has absolutely horrendous implications that I'm worried that you haven't bothered thinking through all the way. It would certainly discourage creatives or nearly anyone from posting anything on the internet. It would render a lot of the internet as a plague to be avoided if you have any interest in retaining any sense of ownership of what you write, do, or make.

Exactly - the whole point would be that if you post something your intention is to put it into the public domain.

As it stands now, as far as I'm aware it's not even possible to waive one's copyright and declare "This is public domain and nobody gets to claim it". And, as someone who'd be happy to release things straight into the public domain if-when I ever release anything, I see that as wrong.

I'll just thank God that you aren't a policy maker if you believe that this would be a good thing.

In excessively brief form, my policy would be geared toward an open, public, non-monetized*, non-commercial internet.

* - as in, no site paywalls or other monetary access barriers. The only cost would be what you pay your carrier for the bandwidth.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

So the convention I'm involved with recently declared all AI art to be bootlegs and that they will ban anyone on site for even promoting it. I of course brought up that by declaring a moral position as opposed to just a policy they were feeding into an ongoing conflict which was only harming artists.

one week later...


And here's an interview with Kamran Pasha, who is a member of The Writers Guild and virulently Anti-AI. Yet he both stated and clarified that it wasn't AI which cost writers jobs, but the actions of the guild itself. So much for unions benefitting their members.


These are just the latest examples I found, and enough harm has been done at this point that I'm no longer humoring the gaslighting. No, AI training is not theft. No, AI training is not a violation of copyright. No, you don't have a point if your response to AI taking jobs is to quit taking jobs yourself. Its use has become just another thing someone can be falsely accused of with little recourse. And if you really want to continue pushing for 'ethical' training, just remember that indies are unlikely to ever afford the rights to enough content to train on, while Big Tech already has rights to all the content they'll ever need. And even if indies did there's no way for them to prove it. I'll let you decide who benefits more from that state of affairs.

So if you're a game designer it doesn't matter if you're using AI, only that people think you are. And if they do you will be harassed online and banned from selling your products at conventions. Which is bad news for Dennis Detwiller as apparently he was exploiting temporal rifts to use AI in #DeltaGreen after all.

View attachment 366642

[Bundle for those interested]

The AI fear mongering is driven by scared elites fearing that regular folks realizing they no longer need them and can get their needs met by AI changing the balance of power.


I'm pro AI, education, healthcare and more is about to get a ton cheaper for regular folks.

PS I adore Kamran Pasha, he's a talented story teller even when he's wrong.

 

[Necropolitan]

The AI fear mongering is driven by scared elites fearing that regular folks realizing they no longer need them and can get their needs met by AI changing the balance of power.

1. There's zero evidence for your claim.
2. The people pushing AI are the actual 'elites.'
AI is being pushed by millionaires and billionaires and massive corporations, not 'regular folks.'