this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1240 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
2850 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (12 children)

That's insane logic...

Like you're essentially saying I can copy/paste any article without a paywall to my own blog and sell adspace on it...

And your still saying OpenAI is trying to make AI companies pay?

Like, do you think AI runs off free cloud services? The hardware is insanely expensive.

And OpenAI is trying to argue the opposite, that AI companies shouldn't have to pay to use copyrighted works.

You have zero idea what is going on, but you are really confident you do

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (11 children)

I clarified the comment above which was misunderstood, whether it makes a moral/sane argument is subjective and i am not covering that.

I am not sure why you think there is a claim that openAI is trying to make companies pay, on the contrary the comment i was clarifying (so not my opinion/words) states that openAI is making an argument that anyone should be able to use copyrighted materials for free to train AI.

The costs of running an online service like chatgpt is wildly besides the argument presented. You can run your own open source large language models at home about as well as you can run Bethesda's Starfield on a same spec'd PC

Those Open source large language models are trained on the same collections of data including copyrighted data.

The logic being used here is:

If It becomes globally forbidden to train AI with copyrighted materials or there is a large price or fine in order to use them for training then the Non-Corporate, Free, Open Source Side of AI will perish or have to go underground while to the For-Profit mega corporations will continue exploit and train ai as usual because they can pay to settle in court.

The Ethical dilemma as i understand it is:

Allowing Ai to train for free is a direct threat towards creatives and a win for BigProfit Enthertainment, not allowing it to train to free is treat to public democratic AI and a win for BigTech merging with BigCrime

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Allowing Ai to train for free is a direct threat towards creatives

No. Many creatives fear that AI allows anyone to do what they do, lowering the skill premium they can charge. That doesn't depend on free training.

Some seem to feel that paying for training will delay AI deployment for some years, allowing the good times to continue (until they retire or die?)

But afterward, you have to ask who's paying for the extra cost when AI is a normal tool for creatives? Where does the money come from to pay the rent to property owners? Obviously the general public will pay a part through higher prices. But I think creatives may bear the brunt, because it's the tools of their trade that are more expensive and I don't think all of that cost can be passed on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think lowering the skill level is something we will need to worry about as over time this actually trickles up, A Creative professional trained with AI tools will almost always top a Amateur using the same tools.

The real issue is Style. If you are an Artist with a very recognizable specific style, and you make your money trough commissions you are basically screwed. Many Artists feature a personal style and while borrowing peoples style is common (disney-esque) it's usually not a problem because within a unique and diverse human mind it rarely results in unintentional latent copying.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think, in the short run, some have reason to worry about their skills. AI does make digital skills more important and manual drawing skills less so.

OTOH, I don't think it's reasonable to worry about styles. Go to aliexpress or some such place and look for paintings. They offer cheap "handmade" paintings and replicas of famos works. They don't offer novel paintings in someone else's style. I don't believe there is any demand for that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The people i worry about most are the independent "starvin" artists you may find at conventions or working from their social media profile. They often do personalized commissioned pieces, what they are essential selling is the clients idea in a chosen style which they have mastered. That entire biz is at risk of going away. I believe the talent of those artists is still valuable though so it is my hope they can go on and make higher level art using the tools they are fighting now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)