I do understand why so many people, especially creative folks, are worried about AI and how it’s used. The future is quite unknown, and things are changing very rapidly, at a pace that can feel out…
I do understand why so many people, especially creative folks, are worried about AI and how it’s used. The future is quite unknown, and things are changing very rapidly, at a pace that can feel out…
AI people just love to disingenuously claim that anybody who criticizes AI “fears” the technology. This is their way of dismissing all critics or skeptics as luddites, and is usefully based entirely on their desire to profit somehow off of the trend.
Artists don’t “fear” AI… They simply want big tech billionaires to stop stealing their copyrighted art works or other intellectual property in the hopes of generating infinite junk “content”.
If you want artists to embrace AI, then you’d better be willing to stay paying them to license their artwork for AI training.
Your comment doesn’t appear to apply to this article at all. It explicitly states that this tool was neither stealing copyrighted art nor a billionaire funded venture.
In this case it really was the unfounded fear of AI that killed a useful tool via misplaced outrage.
Yeah, but that’s not what this tool was? It analyzed writing styles, not copied them.
That’s also what art AI does. It analyzes art styles, then creates unique works based on its “inspiration”
This doesn’t make anything from it, though. It gives you word counts, like how much passive voice was used and how many -ly adverbs. There’s nothing unique created from it.
That’s honestly the issue being pointed out here - people see “AI” and have knee jerk reactions, without seeing how is being used here. I’m completely against AI being used to make “art” or do writing, but that’s not what what this tool did at all. But folks assumed it did.
There are also financial incentives to oppose the adoption of content generating AI. As the spinning jenny replaced hand spinning and electric trolleys replaced horse drawn streetcars, there was always strong financially motivated opposition. How is it different this time?
Because at some point we will automate people completely out of jobs, and then they will have nowhere to go. Our system isn’t set up to handle that.
People are already struggling to find jobs with a liveable wage.
deleted by creator
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was thinking of.
Let’s say your borrow a bunch of books from the local library and read them in order to refine your writing skills. Later, you’ll write a book that is more or less inspired by all of the books you’ve previously read. Do you owe something to the hundreds of authors you got inspired by? Even if you bought those books, do you think the other authors would could still demand something extra because clearly those books weren’t really used for mere entertainment. Instead, they were used to train a new writer.
If it hasn’t happened already, I’m pretty sure there’s going to be a lawsuit about this sort of thing. Then the judge would need to figure out if there’s a difference between a human reading a book for entertainment and training to become a writer.
Mechanical inventions of the past were invented, designed and implemented by people who had a unique idea for how to better accomplish some task. If part(s) of their invention was already patented by someone else, then they would be required to either license that patent or find another novel approach.
Machine learning AI doesn’t work that way. In order to produce any result (let alone a good one) it must be “trained” on a dataset of other people’s works, or peoples faces, or whatever (depending on the desired result). All i ask is that people (artists, writers, musicians, etc) are fairly and regularly compensated when their copyrighted work is used to train AI.
Anything else is exploitation on an industrial scale.
Still waiting on that copyright infringement evidence all of the anti-ai people claim is out there.
My brother in Christ, if I steal all of your writings and art when you’re not looking, chop them up, eat them, and shit them out, they are still your creations-- just now covered in shit, garbled up, and without your original thoughts and intentions put behind them. If I then sell the pile of shit to someone, I am profiting from your labor.
I would be less inclined to hate this if I got some form of royalty or even some form of compensation for the hours and hours I’ve spent planning, creating, editing, and studying to make my things.
My brother in Christ, if you can prove you have ever had an original thought in your life, one that hasn’t been influenced by something that someone said before, I’ll eat all the shit. All of it. Every piece of undigested corn. I’m confident in saying that because I know you can’t. We are all products of our environment, and we can all attribute every thought we’ve had to some experience that we’ve had in our life that involved others. You aren’t as unique as you think you are. All the people that told you that were only trying to protect your ego. You are a combination of events that all lead up to this moment, and all of those events are open source. You don’t own anything. No words. No brush strokes. No ideas. All of them come into your mind because you have experienced aspects of this world. Sure, your own combination of experiences may be unique to you, but no more than the data used to train AI. The idea that humans have some monopoly on original thought is pure hubris. We’ve been stealing IP since we learned to draw on cave walls.
It’s always “us vs them” huh. I’ll wager you don’t know anything about AI
AI made creating art accessible for the masses. What these artists are doing now is going to limit it’s creation to corporations. Great.
Art is already accessible to the masses. It was accessible to cavemen. It’s called picking up a pencil, rock, mud, paper, paint, macaroni, feathers, literally anything in your world and making something of it. Everyone has the ability to be an artist. What the AI bros are complaining about is that they want an easy and instant way to replace years and lifetimes of perfecting one’s craft, while piggybacking off of and stealing said labor to profit from it.
I think you’re being dramatic and playing right into the hands of corporations who wants to control generated art.
As someone who has been obsessed with learning about art, technology, and business my entire life, your attitude reflects the dollar-seeking and exploitative behaviors in upper corporate America I have seen and dealt with many times. It’s one of the reasons why I left it.
It’s not hard to be an artist. Every human being with the ability to express themselves in some way is an artist. You are cheaply wanting to skip the steps of either developing your own skills or hiring someone else to create art for you. You are contributing to a world where artists are learning that they should not openly share their creations because it’ll be taken from them, ripped into pieces, and used for profit while they get nothing. These discussions are happening right now.
I think it’s great that artists are learning not to publish if they don’t want their works remixed and transformed! You can just enjoy your work locally, share it in a closed circle, nice and intimate. Or publish it and let the globe do with it wat they want. I think this is much better for art culture than the current copyright rules (which are also made mostly by corpo murica)
It might not be hard for you to be an image producing artist, but it will be to some. Pretty weird to just wave that away as if everyone that is not able to produce something like that is either lazy or an idiot.
Stealing people’s hard work to spit out pale copies isn’t making art “accessible for the masses.” Artists worked hard to be able to produce the art AI spits out.
AI doesn’t make copies, in the same way that I don’t make copies when looking up what a dog looks like and then try to draw a dog.