• SavvyWolf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The maths technology behind AI generated stuff is indeed impressive and beautiful. But people are mostly against the way it’s being used in the real world.

    Big companies like Microsoft are using it to make profit off of the back of creative types. They’re going to force non-AI art out of the market to make quick short term profit at the cost of the entire creative industry.

    It may be “progress”, but it’s progress in the same way that social media platforms restricting their consumers to increase roi is progress.

    • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Not every model uses copywritten work though. And the underlying technology had nothing to do with it.

      It’s fear mongering to keep the populace away from making money like the dot com bubble people did. I won’t fall for paranoia and fear mongering, but I will always be willing to discuss these things and hear people out. I hope you aren’t mistaking my passion and love for this stuff to be anger or hostility toward anyone, especially artists who are likely somewhat scared.

      • SavvyWolf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I know some people are working on open models trained with consent, but they are in the minority. Most people are angry with the large scraping model which plays no heed towards copyright and ethics. Maybe the language could be more nuanced, sure, but that’s not the world we live in.

        As for stopping people making money from it… As far as I can tell the only people making money from genai are:

        • Large megacorps that can easily throw up some hosting, throw a model on it and charge money for access to it.
        • Companies backed by venture capitalists looking for innovative applications of AI to find a gap in the market.
        • People who don’t create things of artistic merit. For example, by writing a prompt, getting some art and putting it on a t-shirt.

        I’d consider the second one to be the only “good” one. And hey, if you can make something cool out of things that you have explicit consent to use, go for it. But the other two I don’t think are good for society.

        And this is a zero sum game, so money that people are spending on AI are directly coming out of artist’s hypothetical pockets. Which is a problem nowadays given the recent NFT stuff, worldwide economic problems and collapse of vast parts of their marketing and marketplace spaces.

        The technology is cool, it’s just grossly misused by people that are abusing it.

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Where are you getting any of your data for this? We keep talking specifics about general statements.

          Which models are people upset with? There was some talk specifically against OpenAi and their LLM model but the only case I had hear of with image models that went to court just came back and weren’t able to prosecute because the models don’t generate copywritten material. Because that’s not how the tech works. These models are literally learning from others artwork. I don’t know how much more plainly I can put this stuff, I feel like I’m not being understood here.

          You’re trying to tell me we’re not allowed to even learn from others work anymore? I hate capitalism in that case. Why should humans be allowed to go and learn from a bunch of their favorite artists, mimicking their style while young and improving as they get older diversifying what they’re looking at and trying to gain skill from practicing with. Are you gonna say that because my artwork is derivative it should be outlawed?