So does traveling in an airplane, but we let people do that.
Comment on Procreate's anti-AI pledge attracts praise from digital creatives
SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 months agoIt uses too much power.
They steal from those that actually create work and don’t pay them for the [sarcasm] privellege [/sarcasm]. People have to eat and as creatives we need to be paid for our work, or those feeding the models data need to create the work themselves which they can’t do because most of them have invested 0 time or skill into actually being creative in that way.
Its results are often bad.
It’s just the latest line in a long list of scams designed to give money and power to those on the top of the pile already, see: Cryptocurrency, nfts, loot boxes, microtransactions etc.
istanbullu@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I seriously doubt travelling in an airplane does all the listed things.
xilliah@beehaw.org 3 months ago
What she said plus lots of people don’t fly.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
You should read these two articles from Cory Doctorow. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
pluralistic.net/…/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#in…
pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/
SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 months ago
When I bring this up, people keep talking about copyright. I’m not really sure as I don’t explicitly say anything about copyright. I’m personally against copyright, what I’m for is two things:
Creative people, under a system where they need money to live and to continue to create art of all types to get paid and consent.
The first is a very important point because, if you don’t have to pay an actual artist to create things then they won’t get paid and thus won’t be able to live, that’s why Machine Learning is bad under capitalism.
The second is also very important but that tech obsessives, big companies time and time again don’t care enough about. Consent should be sought explicitly before any data is used, time and time again this is not done, so, the next point about consent should be brought up in that consent should be able to be revoked at any point for any reason without consequences.
That’s what I care about, not copyright in and of itself, I care about people getting paid at a price they’ve set for every piece of data that’s fed into them and explicit revocable consent being given to train the machines, that’s it.
If those two conditions are met then personally then I’d likely have no problem with it.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Did you read the first one?
What you want would give Disney broad powers to oppressively control large amounts of popular discourse. I acknowledge that Specific expressions deserve protection and should retain specific rights, and rights they don’t have always enabled ethical self-expression and productive dialogue. Wanting to bar others from analyzing your work to keep them from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful.
You’re against the type of system you desperately want to become. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech as a whole are built upon. I don’t think any state is going to pass a law that guts the core freedoms of art, research, and basic functionality of the internet and computers.
SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I’ll admit, it was kind of long and difficult to read for some reason, so I kind of started and then didn’t read everything in it, maybe I’ll try again later.
Okay, that’s fair, I don’t want the ‘creative industrial complex’ like disney etc to gain more power, sorry if I came off incorrectly. I can see the flaws in my argument now, but machine learning/LLMs do make me angry and upset because sure, if a person is analysing my work, that’s fine, I just don’t particularly want that work to be used to make new work without the skills necessary to do so well, LLMs/Machine Learning cannot gain those skills because it is not alive and thus it cannot create. I actually release most of my work very permissively, but I still don’t want it to train some model, I’m happy if people are inspired by it though.
The article mentions though that using things ‘without permission’ is how a lot of people became and remain(ed) poor, especially people from marginalised communities, likely from those in power so again, I think we’re on the same page there?