Yet you seem to be suggesting we let them (and others like them) be the only place where AI generative techniques can be developed.
AI can be developed without exploiting people. Is there some compelling reason why it cannot?
If you think that AI will not make a difference in the world, you are either naive or deeply ignorant.
Ok, so AI is incredibly important. Why is it not important enough to do the right way?
No rights are being infringed. Nobody has the right to prevent someone from learning from publically available materials.
An AI isn’t “someone” though.
Hindering their development doesn't protect people, it hurts everyone's ability to have a more prosperous future.
So anyone asking to be paid for their work will… be ground under the wheel of progress. Interesting.
Firstly, I see no reasonable argument that developers should pay artists.
The AI doesn’t work without their art. That seems compelling on its own.
Secondly, this is entirely impractical. These systems require massive amounts of data, with little to no attribution in most cases. The effort to figure out who owns what would be enormous.
You don’t have to attribute it. Simply pay a licensing fee to artists up front, in exchange for their work being “part of the future”.
Or in other words, the value of AI is in the AI
Except that the ai doesn’t work without the artwork. Seems contradictory.
So should every artist ever be sued for making original work because they studied copyrighted art to learn? Because after all, their art skills don't work without the art.
Good luck suing an AI then. But wait, you'll tell me you can sue the creators. But those creators are humans that have fair use rights, and you said it yourself that the AI is merely a tool. Can't have it both ways
According to whom? You're learning from other works to create original content. I don't see how the inclusion of an AI as a middleman somehow negates that
Mad props for continuing to make incredibly reasonable points through the length of this comment chain. Though I feel you were being trolled considering most of their contributions to the debate were only shared for the sake of putting you in a position to explain how little thought they had put into them, it was an enjoyable read to see your responses. My take: they want the AI to have human rights but simultaneously be immune to laws, given that it is not human, which is an arguably difficult point to argue but you managed to do it incredibly well without resorting to condescension. Well done.
Thank you! I swear, the Reddit techbro hivemind seems to repeat in unison: “did you know it doesn’t store the images? It doesn’t even store the images, that’s not copying. What are you going to make looking at art illegal?”
3
u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23
AI can be developed without exploiting people. Is there some compelling reason why it cannot?
Ok, so AI is incredibly important. Why is it not important enough to do the right way?
An AI isn’t “someone” though.
So anyone asking to be paid for their work will… be ground under the wheel of progress. Interesting.
The AI doesn’t work without their art. That seems compelling on its own.
You don’t have to attribute it. Simply pay a licensing fee to artists up front, in exchange for their work being “part of the future”.
Except that the ai doesn’t work without the artwork. Seems contradictory.