Comment on The activist who’s taking on artificial intelligence in the courts: ‘This is the fight of our lives’
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Luddites smashing power looms.
Comment on The activist who’s taking on artificial intelligence in the courts: ‘This is the fight of our lives’
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Luddites smashing power looms.
frog@beehaw.org 11 months ago
It’s worth remembering that the Luddites were not against technology. They were against technology that replaced workers, without compensating them for the loss, so the owners of the technology could profit.
luciole@beehaw.org 11 months ago
Moreover, Luddites were opposed to the replacement of independent at-home workers by oppressed factory child labourers. Much like OpenAI aims to replace creative professionals by an army of precarious poorly paid microworkers.
frog@beehaw.org 11 months ago
Yep! And it’s not like a lot of creative professionals are paid all that well right now. The tech and finance industries do not value creatives.
Juno@beehaw.org 11 months ago
“Starving artist”
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Their problem was that they smashed too many looms and not enough capitalists. AI training isn’t just for big corporations. We shouldn’t applaud people that put up barriers that will make it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep up. This will only help the rich and give corporations control over a public technology.
frog@beehaw.org 11 months ago
It should be prohibitively expensive for anyone to steal from regular people, whether it’s big companies or other regular people. I’m not more enthusiastic about the idea of people stealing from artists to create open source AIs than I am when corporations do it. For an open source AI to be worth the name, it would have to use only open source training data - ie, stuff that is in the public domain or has been specifically had an open source licence assigned to it. If the creator hasn’t said they’re okay with their content being used for AI training, then it’s not valid for use in an open source AI.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven’t already. The EFF is a digital rights group who most recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
People are trying to conjour up new rights to take another piece of the public’s right and access to information. To fashion themselves as new owner class. Artists and everyone else should accept that others have the same rights as they do, and they can’t now take those opportunities from other people because it’s their turn now.
There’s already a model trained on just Creative Commons licensed data, but you don’t see them promoting it. That’s because it was not about the data, it’s an attack on their status, and when about generators that didn’t use their art, they came out overwhelmingly against with the same condescending and reductive takes they’ve been using this whole time.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.