Comment

Comment on How much did photography "stole" painter jobs ?

But it does hold water. The original image might not be contained within the model, but the fact that it was trained on stolen data makes it problematic. Even if humans do the same, an AI model is not a human, and therefore needs to adhere to different rules.

source

Sort:hotnew top

NotSpez@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Also: scale. If you’re a painter inspired by other painters, your output will still be limited. AI is a different story in this regard.

source
MayaHorsewoman@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
AI pulling from a database to recreate artstyles is much more destructive than human inspiration.

Imagine you're a child book illustrator. Your work is out there and accessible. Now someone has the idea to get into it using AI. They really like your artstyle and tell the AI your name. Now the AI spits out illustrations in your artstyle, and many people might not even be able to tell the difference.

This random person uploads it or maybe even contacts your publisher. Worst case scenario they even buy his work and not care about the quality of the stories. Now you're actually replaced.

Now is this not copyright infringement?

Having the AI cite sources is not a solution to this as people will simply detach them. Having signatures on your works is not a solution and it actually makes it worse because then the AI copies it and now it looks like signed work from you.

When I first saw people using AI to make great images I thought the same. It's just a non human inspiration cycle. But human inspiration is so so different. You don't just look at existing images. EVERYTHING you've ever seen is an inspiration. Everything you've ever read heard or done too.

Human inspiration is one thing. Creation takes skill practice and time. AI creation doesn't. The program might have required skill to write, but that's not an excuse for it to threaten entire industries.

source
- Harrison@ttrpg.network ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  The program might have required skill to write, but that’s not an excuse for it to threaten entire industries.
  
  We don’t live in a world where industries exist just because it would be nice for them to and people need work.
  
  An industry is a productive environment that creates products for others to buy. If the people buying from the current art industry care about human inspiration and the uniqueness they add to art, they will continue to buy from humans. If they do not, why should the state use it’s monopoly on violence to cripple any other source of product?
  
  Are artists some special class of people above every other group of workers who’ve lost their jobs to automation?
  
  source
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If a painter looks at another artisis painting, then decided to paint something similar, is that stealing?

source
- RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  @RightHandOfIkaros If they are just painting for themselves to learn new techniques or styles, no. If they are purposely trying to copy it to sell or pass off as the original artist, yes. A for-profit corperation taking works that have not been authorized for commercial use in order to develop their for-profit software is indeed staeling.
  
  source
dave@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Like elephants?

It does become not a technical discussion but a philosophical one pretty soon. I’m not sure humans can accurately cite their sources either—yes they can be interviewed and claim X or Y as a big influence on their artistic work. But how do they know that? Do they know that more than an AI asked the same question?

source