In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.

AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.

All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    There was a lot of stuff that could be publicly viewed that was still under copyright or similar. We spent a good 20 years having artists developed and distribute portfolios online to be marketable to firms. And now the firms have essentially taken their work for free, used it in a way that there aren’t really any protections against legally speaking, without any warning, and monetized the models to make money. All while cutting those same artists out of jobs because the LLM is cheaper.

    The ultimate goal is you don’t take something someone made without their knowledge, use it to make profit for you and then tell me to get rekt when I want what I should be entitled to.

    These artists aren’t a monolith. Most of them aren’t even unionised. This tech had a varied history but to most of the public this tech is like a year old. They want protections. They want to continue in the career path they made sacrifices to follow. They want a lot of things but the point is regulation would be a good start.

    What is the ultimate goal of Generative AI? Because I don’t see a way forward where it’s unregulated use will be beneficial with no detriments to the people upon whose work it was built.

    • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      When you start getting into the specifics, it becomes way more complicated. How exactly should these AI companies notify people that their content is being used for their model? First of all, they’re not actually the ones harvesting the data. That scrapers tend to be independent… so these artists are going after the wrong people, unless you expect the AI company to parse through all the data they use to find the rightful owners of everything and ask for their consent, which isn’t really viable, let alone practical. Let’s suppose the artists do go after the scrapers, how exactly do they notify people that their content is being used? The content is collected by an algorithm, how are they supposed to reliably identify the rightful owners of content and ask for their consent? Do they just send automatic messages to any email or phone number they find?

      How about this, what if an artist is posting their art on a platform, like say for example Reddit, and that platform agrees to allow the data to scraped and used for AI data training? Does the platform company own the data on the platform or the individual artist? If it is the latter, what’s stopping platforms from modifying their TOS to just claim ownership of anything posted on their platforms? Again, what is the ultimate goal here?

      The point is that while I agree that AI has to be regulated, the criticisms and proposed regulations have to specific and pragmatic for them to mean anything. This general hatred of AI and whining by artists and other groups is just noise. It’s just people trying to fight against technology, and as history has shown us before, they will inevitably lose. New technologies have always threatened and displaced well established workers, careers, and industries. For example, lamp lighting used to an actual job, but as the technology improved and light bulbs became a thing, lamplighters became a thing of the past. They tried very hard to resist the change and managed to do so for awhile, but it was a losing battle and they eventually faded away. Economics and technology always win.

      That’s kind of the key here, these generative AI’s are the light bulbs of our era. They’ve already replaced a bunch of jobs and radically changing entire industries. There’s no ultimate goal with them and there’s no fighting them. Pandora’s box is open and it’s not going to close. This new technology is still at it’s infancy now, but it’s going to rapidly expand, evolve, and adapt to a bunch of different situations. Whle regulations can help guide this freight train of a technology in the right direction, they can’t stop something with no brakes. As it gets adopted by more and more people and used in more and more spaces, it’s going to alter how we do things kind of like how smartphones or social media did. We have no choice but to evolve with them or else we’ll become the new lamplighters.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Receiving stolen property is still a crime. You can’t hire an independent contractor to draw you Disney characters and use the IP to make money. That’s still illegal.

        • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          But that’s not what these generative AIs do. They use actual content for training, but all generations are unique… Just like actual art

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            If you go to college for art you are actively required to use specific licensed learning materials to learn from. They don’t just go get random training material off the web and go “draw like this but make it your own”. The same principles apply. The AI has no filters. It has no way of determining what is copyright infringement and what isn’t. It can’t decide what is fair use and what isn’t.

            • SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              But that’s specific to universities as institutions, not art as a concept. There are plenty of artists without formal education that got inspiration from the things we saw. We could have a discussion about how internet scrapers get their data, however that’s a different conversation. AI art isn’t stealing content, it’s using existing content (in albeit questionable ways) to generate new and unique content.

        • willie stedden@sigmoid.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          @atrielienz @SleezyDizasta my opinion is if I, as an artist, can look at publicly posted content and use that to inform my own unique work then why shouldn’t an AI be able to? If I try to sell a drawing of bugs bunny, then WB can sue me, but I can sell as many bugs bunny inspired rabbit drawings as I want. That should be the rule for an algorithm too.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Because you as the artist are going to change that to make a unique work within certain legal guidelines. The fact is, the laws have not caught up to regulate this and protect artists.

            Additionally though you’re not thinking about this the right way. Your work as an artist is copyrighted. Meaning you own it and the right to license it to other entities. You as the artist did not license the use of your work to the company that used it for training data to give a result similar to your work when queried.

            There are LLM’s that do only use licensed work that they have purchased a license for or the rights to. Getty images is a really good example. But ChatGPT did not license anything. So everything that comes out the other end of a query is tainted by the stolen data or art that went into it.

            Look up why the actors guild striked and protested to protect their art and likenesses. And then tell me you don’t feel the same way. There’s multiple lawsuits going on right now with multiple of these LLM’s that have stolen data to use as training material.

            A college can’t just take your work offline and use it in their curriculum. Neither should an LLM be allowed to do that.

            • willie stedden@sigmoid.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              @atrielienz what I’m saying is that if the artwork is viewable in public, I have given the public license to hold that information in their brain and use it to influence their own output.

              If a member of the public makes too similar of a replica then I can sue. We do not regulate the intake of public information into human storage/retrieval systems (brains) so why should we do that for synthetic ones?

              We should only regulate the output to not reproduce art or an actors likeness etc.

              • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                If you go to college for art you are actively required to use specific licensed learning materials to learn from. They don’t just go get random training material off the web and go “draw like this but make it your own”. The same principles apply. The AI has no filters. It has no way of determining what is copyright infringement and what isn’t. It can’t decide what is fair use and what isn’t.

                • willie stedden@sigmoid.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  @atrielienz the reason they have to use specific licensed material is because they are charging rhe art student and therefore must pay for the materials they provide to the student.

                  But as a student, you can look at any public art you want and allow it to inform your work as long as you don’t copy. So that’s another example of the same principle: you must pay to reproduce/distribute someone else’s art for money. So we come to the same point: no reproduction, but intake is allowed.

                  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Two things. One. You agree that they are charging the student and therefore providing a service and thereby would need to use licensed material because they are charging for that material or its use. Why is that different that a generative AI firm providing a paid service using unlicensed training data? We’re not talking about generative AI firms as individuals. They’re businesses. Making money off a training set that was acquired through means that took the IP of other individuals and business without their knowledge and consent and used it to create something that they are selling as a service.

                    Two. There are a myriad of reasons why companies license materials and a lot of them don’t include the direct use, redistribution of, or copying of any of that material. There’s also a number of reasons schools license materials up to and including uniformity, consistency, and to put their spin on things so to speak. That’s why you might be able to find the same art course on offer just about any higher learning institution but the one at Julliard is not going to be the same as the one at the community college of Kenosha Wisconsin. The community college can’t just get a copy of the training materials used by Julliard and reproduce those exactly. What you’re saying is just a gross oversimplification of the real reasons, and I feel like it might be on purpose at this point.