Comment

Comment on AI trained on photos from kids’ entire childhood without their consent

Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The point is that It’s not an activity you can force someone to pay for.

counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you’re counting doesn’t want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton’s family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

Creating an individual bargainable copyright over training will not improve the material conditions of artists’ lives – all it will do is change the relative shares of the value we create, shifting some of that value from tech companies that hate us and want us to starve to entertainment companies that hate us and want us to starve.

source

Sort:hotnew top

frog@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Creating same-y pieces with AI will not improve the material conditions of artists’ lives, either. All that does is drag everyone down.

source
- Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Creating same-y pieces with AI will not improve the material conditions of artists’ lives, either. All that does is drag everyone down in a race to the bottom on who can churn out the most dreck the most quickly. “If we advance the technology enough, everybody can have it on their device and make as much AI-generated crap as they like” does not secure stable futures for artists.
  
  If you’re worried about labor issues, use labor law to improve your conditions. Don’t deny regular people access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility for your monetary gain.
  
  Art ain’t just a good; it’s self-expression, communication, inspiration, joy – rights that belong to every human being. The kind of people wanting to relegate such a significant part of the human experience to a domain where only the few can benefit aren’t the kind of people that want things to get better. They want to become the proverbial boot. The more people can participate in these conversations, the more we can all learn.
  
  I understand that you are passionate about this topic, and that you have strong opinions. However, insults, and derisive language aren’t helping this discussion. They only create hostility and resentment, and undermine your credibility. If you’re interested, we can continue our discussion in good faith, but if your next comment is like this one, I won’t be replying.
  
  source
  - frog@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I did actually specify that I think the solution is extending labour laws to cover the entire sector, although it seems that you accidentally missed that in your enthusiasm to insist that the solution is having AI on more devices. However, so far I haven’t seen any practical solutions as to how to extend labour laws to protect freelancers who will lose business to AI but don’t have a specific employer that the labour laws will apply to. Retroactively assigning profits from AI to freelancers who have lost out during the process doesn’t seem practical.
    
    source
    Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    So the question that comes to mind is exactly how, on a practical level, it would work to make sure that when a company scrapes data, trains and AI, and then makes billions of dollars, the thousands or millions of people who created the data all get a cut after the fact. Because particularly in the creative sector, a lot of people are freelancers who don’t have a specific employer they can go after. From a purely practical perspective, paying artists before the data is used makes sure all those freelancers get paid. Waiting until the company makes a profit, taxing it out of them, and then distributing it to artists doesn’t seem practical to me.
    
    This isn’t labor law.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments