Kerfuffle

Kerfuffle, rok temu

Doubled down on the “yea were not gonna credit artist’s our AI stole from”. What a supreme douche

I don’t think it’s as simple as all that. Artists look at other artists’ work when they’re learning, for ideas, for methods of doing stuff, etc. Good artists probably have looked at a ton of other artwork, they don’t just form their skills in a vacuum. Do they need to credit all the artists they “stole from”?

In the article, the company made a point about not using AI models specifically trained on a smaller set of works (or some artist’s individual works). Doing something like that would be a lot easier to argue that it’s stealing: but the same would be true if a human artist carefully studied another person’s work and tried to emulate their style/ideas. I think there’s a difference between that an “learning” (or learning) for a large body of work and not emulating any specific artist, company, individual works, etc.

Obviously it’s something that needs to be handled fairly carefully, but that can be true with human artists too.

Kerfuffle, rok temu

You can’t tell it to find art and plug it in.

Kind of. The AI doesn’t go out and find/do anything, people include images in its training data though. So it’s the human that’s finding the art and plugging it in — most likely through automated processes that just scrape massive amounts of images and add them to the corpus used for training.

It doesn’t have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts.

Sorry, this is wrong. You definitely can train AI to produce works that are very nearly a direct copy. How “original” works created by the AI are is going to depend on the size of the corpus it got trained on. If you train the AI (or put a lot of weight on) training for just a couple works from one specific artist or something like that it’s going to output stuff that’s very similar. If you train the AI on 1,000,000 images from all different artists, the output isn’t really going to resemble any specific artist’s style or work.

That’s why the company emphasized they weren’t training the AI to replicate a specific artist’s (or design company, etc) works.

Kerfuffle, rok temu (edited rok temu)

Artists who look at art are processing it in a relatable, human way.

Yeah, sure. But there’s nothing that says “it’s not stealing if you do it in a relatable, human way”. Stealing doesn’t have anything to do with that.

knowing that work is copyrighted and not available for someone else’s commercial project to develop an AI.

And it is available for someone else’s commercial project to develop a human artist? Basically, the “an AI” part is still irrelevant to. If the works are out there where it’s possible to view them, then it’s possible for both humans and AIs to acquire them and use them for training. I don’t think “theft” is a good argument against it.

But there are probably others. I can think of a few.

Kerfuffle, rok temu

I just want fucking humans paid for their work

That’s a problem whether or not we’re talking about AI.

why do you tech nerds have to innovate new ways to lick the boots of capital every few years?

That’s really not how it works. “Tech nerds” aren’t licking the boots of capitalists, capitalists just try to exploit any tech for maximum advantage. What are the tech nerds supposed to do, just stop all scientific and technological progress?

why AI should own all of our work, for free, rights be damned,

AI doesn’t “own your work” any more than a human artist who learned from it does. You don’t like the end result, but you also don’t seem to know how to come up with a coherent argument against the process of getting there. Like I mentioned, there are better arguments against it than “it’s stealing”, “it’s violating our rights” because those have some serious issues.

Kerfuffle, rok temu

As a general statement: No, I am not.

You didn’t qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn’t, it actually does.

You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.

Not really. It isn’t that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they’d like to use but also not want to pay that artist’s fees so they train an AI on the artist’s portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.

This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

So this isn’t true. What you said isn’t accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn’t work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn’t, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call “stealing” or infringing on the artist’s rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.

Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.

Yes, that’s kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That’s why the company in OP took pains to say they weren’t doing that.

Kerfuffle, rok temu

It’s fairly entertaining but you really have to suspend disbelief. I’d call it fantasy with some sci-fi jargon more than actual sci-fi. I guess I could say overall plot doesn’t make a lot of sense but scenery on the way isn’t too hard on the eyes.

Just curious, to you speak Mandarin?

Kerfuffle, rok temu

Ah, I see. I was going to recommend you a link to the audiobooks that I found.

I managed to find what I assume are English fansubs.

It was on Amazon Prime’s streaming service for a while so there should be official subs at least floating around.

Kerfuffle, rok temu

That certainly sucks all the joy out of pirating it.