Technology

59374 readers

7244 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

564

The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content) (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

205 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (7 children)

I see this argument a lot as a defense for AI art and I see a couple major flaws in this line of thinking.

First, it's treating the AI art as somehow the same as a dirivitive (or parody) work made by an actual person. These two things are not the same and should not be argued like they are.

AI art isn't just dirivitive. It's a Frankenstein's Monster of a bunch of different pieces of art stitched together in a procedural way that doesn't credit and in fact obfuscates the original works. This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst. Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person. And would typically at least credit the original works being riffed on. This involves actual creative thought and human touch. Even if it is dirivitive it's unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.

AI art cannot and will not ever be unique, at least not when used to just create a work wholesale. Because it's not being creative. It's calculating and nothing more. (at least if we're talking about current tachnology. A possible future General AI could flout this argument. But that would get into an AI personhood conversation not really relevant to our current machine learning tech).

Secondly, no one is worried that some hypothetical shitty AI video is going to somehow usurp the work that it's stealing from. What people are worried about is that AI art is going to be used in place of hiring actual artists for bigger projects. And the fact that this AI art exists solely because it's scraped the internet of art from those same artists now losing their livelihoods makes the tech incredibly fucked up.

Now don't get me wrong though. I do believe machine learning has its place in society. And we've already been using it for a long time to help with large tasks that would be incredibly difficult if not impossible for people to do on their own in a bunch of different industries. Things like medicine research in the pharmaceutical sector and fraud monitoring in the banking sector come to mind.

Also, there is an argument to be had that machine learning algorithms could be used as tools in creating art. I don't really have a problem with those use cases. Things that come to mind are a bunch of different tools that exist in music production right now that in my opinion help in allowing artists to fulfill their vision. Watch some There I Ruined It videos on YouTube to see what I mean. Yeah that guy is using AI to make himself sound like other musicians. But that guy also had to be a really solid singer and impressionist in the first place for those songs to be any good at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst.

You could say that about literally all art - no artist can name and attribute every single influence that played even the smallest effect on the work created. Say I commissioned an image of an anime man in a french maid uniform in a 4 panel pop art style. In creating it at some level you are going to draw on every anime image you've seen, every picture of a french maid uniform, every 4 panel pop art image and create something that's a synthesis of all those things. You can't name and attribute every single example of all of those things you have ever seen, as well as anything else that might have influenced you.

Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person.

...and this is the crux of it - it's not anything related to the actual content of the image, it's simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that's only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Even if it is dirivitive it’s unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.

Again, the argument is it's nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be "art" by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You could say that about literally all art

Except I couldn't. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity's art output to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person's text prompt.

They're just not the same thing at all.

The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

...and this is the crux of it - it's not anything related to the actual content of the image, it's simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that's only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Yes it has nothing to do with the content of the image. I never claimed otherwise. In fact AI art sometimes being indistinguishable from human made art is part of the problem. But we're not just talking about automating someone's job. We're talking about automating someone's passion. Automating someone's dream career. In an ideal world we'd automate all the shitty jobs and pay everyone to play guitar, paint a portrait, write a book, or direct a film. Art being made by AI won't just take away jobs for creatives, it'll sap away the drive we have as humans to create. And when we create less our existence will be filled with even more bleakness than it already is.

Again, the argument is it's nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be "art" by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

I'm not certain I understand what you're asking. But If the human is the one making the decision on where to put the pixel then yeah that would be fine. But at no point am I arguing about whether or not AI art is "art". That would just be a dumb semantic argument that'd go nowhere. I'm merely discussing why I believe AI art to be unethical. And the taking away work from creatives point is only one facet as to why I do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can't draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

This is basically trying to argue there's only 1 correct way to make "art", which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn't art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. "Expression" can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can't draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

Never claimed it wasn't an opinion. And I fully acknowledge that tools can make creating art easier. Hell, I even support the use of machine learning tools when making art. When used as tools and not as a means of creating art wholesale they can enable creativity. But, I'm sorry, writing a text prompt for an AI to produce an image is not making art (for the person writing the prompt). It's writing a prompt. In the same way that a project manager writing a brief for a contract artist to fullfil is also not creating the art. The AI is producing the art (and by extension the artists who created the works the AI was trained off of). Your friend with aphantasia is not.

This is basically trying to argue there's only 1 correct way to make "art", which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn't art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. "Expression" can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

Again, I never said any form of art was invalid. Not even AI art. Nor do I think AI art isn't art. AI art is perfectly capable of creating something worthwhile by means of its content. It's basing it's output on worthwhile works of art created by people after all. I'm merely arguing AI art is unethical. If you made a mural out of the blood of children you murdered it'd still be art. But it sure as shit wouldn't be ethical.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)