this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
351 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

59440 readers
5762 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (20 children)

My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they've seen before and meanings associated with them.

it’s a collage of other art

This is genuinely a misunderstanding of how these programs work.

when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.

Because the only art anyone has ever done is when someone else paid them for it? There are a lot of art forms that generally aren't commercially viable, and it's very odd to insist that commercial viability is what advances an art form.

I do actually get regularly paid for a kind of work that is threatened by these things (although in my case it's LLMs, not images). For the time being I can out-perform ChatGPT and the like, but I don't expect that that will last forever. Either I'll end up incorporating it or I'll need to find something else to do. But I'm not going to stop doing my hobby versions of it.

Technology kills jobs all the time. We don't have many human calculators these days. If the work has value beyond the financial, people will keep doing it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they've seen before and meanings associated with them.

In which case the machine would get the copyright (which legally they can't now), not the prompter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright just isn't compatible with AI, we need to abolish it.

If a picture gets generated, who is the owner? The one writing the prompt? The AI that generated it? The researchers that created the AI? The artist on which the picture is based?

How about none of them? It is a picture, a piece of information. It doesn't need an owner.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Can we get UBI before we start abolishing people's income though?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)