I see AI art as mostly a toy. As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific. The thing with intellectual property is that currently, its necessary so that artists can be paid for their work, but it last way too long. I’d be in favor of limiting to twenty years since publication. This would allow artists to monetize their work, even handsomely, if they produce something outstanding, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.

I can see where you’re coming from, but I think there’s also an anti-socialist angle to the way it’s being used right now. It further alienates the artist form the art, enabling the extraction of their labor by the owners of the algorithms.

If the source code and data sets of the AI were in the public domain, or as easy to access and modify as the art they take advantage of, it would be more compatible with socialism. As it stands AI is being leveraged as another tool of capitalist exploitation to funnel even more money into big tech stock valuations.

I’m sorry but this sounds a lot like “guns don’t kill people”.

“AI” is doing tremendous damage right now to artists and many other population strata, no matter how you like to word it. I’m all for automation and I think “AI” can help humanity in many ways, but right now it’s also being used to cheap out and hurt humanity at large. I don’t think it’s helpful at all to look away

I mean, it was a tech luddite on a niche tech forum that started this if we wanna reduce our opposition to a nuanceless paper enemy

Where do they dig these people up

Yeah I know. Still.

The only part that annoys me about that complaint is that it’s not “stealing.” I think it’s very reasonable for artists to ask for compensation if their works are used in the creation of a commercial product, but it never has and never will be theft. Equating copyright infringement with theft is entertainment industry anti-piracy propaganda, and Hollywood really doesn’t need you to be their unpaid spokesperson.

If you’re an independent artist who wants to be compensated when your art is used in AI training, then do yourself the favor of understanding what you actually need to ask for. Specifically, legislation to clarify that incorporation of copyrighted materials into an AI training data set is a protected use under copyright law and requires compensation, and/or that AI image models should be established as derivative works of the images in their training. That’s the legislative change they should be pushing for rather than inaccurately claiming “theft” and “stealing art.”

Stealing art is when you have a painting and I don’t, and then I take it, and now I have a painting and you don’t. It has nothing to do with AI. Artists who oppose AI would be better advocates for themselves if they offered their criticism in accurate terminology.

I don’t know if you’ve met many artists, but they pretty much were all bankrupt before AI came along.

ok so technically the definition of art isn’t really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is “that it isn’t human” and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that’s why “ai art” is the term people use instead.

Art it art, it doesn’t matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it’s art, it’s art. It’s technically just that simple.

I also wouldn’t classify it as theft, considering that’s pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they’re all pretty similar? There’s a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.

it’s funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it’s working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?

You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let’s go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it’s hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.

:P

I technically didn’t steal this content because I added a “:P” to it. Nobody can really define what plagiarism is so therefore it’s all good!

This is correct in more than one way

Very often scientific breakthroughs lead to horrible unforseen outcomes (I doubt the first people to create a recipe for black powder forsaw the havoc it’d cause) - but y’all should’ve seen this coming.

Automation always leads to less workforce being needed pretty much without exception. Thousands of craftsmen were put out of work by industrial machines, replaced with women and children paid dirt poor wages. Automobiles ended the era of horse and buggy (not so great an ending for the horses at large). Shorthand stenographers were put out of jobs by the type-writer. Computer was a job title before it was something that fit in your pocket.

Bottom line: If you invent something that automates X - everyone who does X will begin to lose their jobs to your automation.

Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.

So do we stop trying to push the envelope? Do we not try to make the world a better place for fear that it’ll be corrupted? I really just don’t know

I think we probably need to stop having massive corpos that force people to piss in bottles, seems like the correct answer to me.

They’re working to make a profit. They couldn’t give a shit about what effect it has on the world.

Regulations are supposed to help keep corruption and greed driven bad actors from running rampant and misusing new technology.

The problem isn’t innovation. It’s the extremely wealthy people throwing their money into lobbying against any regulations that would limit how they’re allowed to utilize new technology like AI. Can’t have things like ethics getting in the way of raking in all that money.

In the US this problem is pretty extreme because we have corporations funding our politicians via things like super PACs. It supposedly doesnt influence any politicians decisions, but we all know it must. People don’t throw around that much money during election time for shits and giggles. Somebody is getting something out of it somewhere.

is it really corpo corruption? majority of ai art ‘enthusiasts’ do so in the guise of ‘democratizing’ art but they harrass artist by scraping their work and dming them that they will be out of jobs and will die poor.

The answer is ethics, and refusing to work on topics that are contrary to ethics. can you really complain about corporations corrupting everything if you are the one enabling them by letting them corrupt you?

So you fully embrace AI generated journalism? AI art devoid of any emotions and skill? Shitty answers to prompts that just create more problems than solving them? AI has a long fucking way to go before it can really benefit humankind.

Let’s talk again after your job is automated away, with no possibility for you to “skill up” because unlike in the 70s, this time the automation trend is starting from the top positions and the arts.

Luddites were 100% on the right side of history, as they were complaining not about technology but about the way it was being used as leverage against the lower classes. Your opinion of them is the result of an easy smear campaign, from the same people that are wielding technology now against you with your blessing.

I would encourage you to read up on who the Luddites really were. In short, textile workers who were being forced into underpaid and very dangerous work making cheap shit. They broke some machines and wrote some threatening letters to try and achieve a ban on child labour and a minimum wage. Then the government responded with executions and penal transportation.

When people complain about AI (including the above screenshot), it’s almost always just complaints about Capitalism. Yeah, big corporations are pushing AI hard. Yes, they are trying to replace workers with AI. These are not AI problems, they are Capitalism problems. People do know it’s okay to criticize Capitalism instead of just the things that Capitalism abuses, right?

And it’s like they don’t see the ways that AI can help in the fight against Capitalism by empowering individuals.

Plus, AI is not solely the providence of corporations… and even if they are in the lead on advancements, they won’t be able to keep it locked down, either. There are community AI projects and open source/weight/etc models… and they are also advancing quickly. The libraries that interact with the models are almost all open source, too.

And while people complain about corporations scraping peoples data for training they neglect to consider that we, the community, can scrape corporate data as well… that’s ALL fair use. Attacking, diminishing, or destroying fair use benefits rich corporations infinitely more than it benefits us plebs and community efforts. “License your training data” is something only deep pockets can achieve. If I want to train something and have to pay for training data (which, btw won’t ever be reproduced/redistributed)… I can’t do that, you can’t do that… 99.999% can’t do that.

The fear of Capitalists replacing us all with software has somehow managed to make people miss the forest for the trees. AI isn’t the enemy - not any more than the cotton gin, the telephone, or the internet - Capitalism is.

Nah man it’s just another grift ban the fuck out of it. It might be artificial but it isn’t very intelligent.

The Luddite comparison is rather unfair. AI will have its applications, but it’s largely turning into the next tech bro buzzword being inappropriately shoehorned into everything, just like companies were trying to do with crypto and block chain everything a couple of years back. Now, everywhere you turn is cramming it in by default, whether it’s actually helpful or not. Outlook suddenly started irritating attempts at “assisting” my email writing, when I search for stuff, I get previews with generic AI summaries rather than letting me see a snippet of the actual content, and on and on. AI art will be matter of taste, I suppose, but AI evangelists have taken a novelty and worn out its welcome faster than redditors beating the dead horse of a joke into the ground.

If companies weren’t constantly overselling its current capabilities and putting it in things it has no business being in, you would probably have a much less negative reaction to it. I’ll wait another few years to see what it actually shakes out to be useful for, but in the meantime, I don’t really want to hear about the latest and greatest AI-enabled toaster that uses cloud technology to predict when you want toast and to burn images based on voice prompts into your toast, while using a loaf-based block chain to identify which of your roommates should have used the heel of the loaf but skipped it.

Yeah no.

Most of it is not open source, not available unless you sign your soul away to tech companies

Also this is not about being left behind, this is about crappy software being abused to yet again mine your data.

I’ve found AI useful just for programming examples. I think it’s a decent programming resource especially when working in an unfamiliar language.

Outside of that it’s right now a net negative in almost every case where I’ve seen it used. Google results are already polluted by AI-generated hallucinated crap and the bots will feast on their own excrement until it dominates the entire internet.

Let’s be honest about the two reasons why the industry is pushing it. Number one, it has the potential to replace human workers at low cost and therefore is attractive to the investor class. Number two, tech investment is down in a high interest rate business climate and after the dud of VR the tech companies need a new buzzword to attract capital.

They are certainly not cramming it into your OS because they think you will actually find it useful.

Feel free, this is a forum