@Tomycj1@teropa@Draren_Thiralas They're arguing essential control over licensing and consent. And at the same time the immorality of the technology itself. it’s a schizophrenic position, which is why they very rarely persuade anyone that's not within their own echo chamber.
@Tomycj1@teropa@Draren_Thiralas Also, nobody told artist they can’t use these tools. They decided that they don’t want to participate in a new technology. It’s like people who drove horse and buggies getting pissed that cars took over the road roads.
@teropa@Draren_Thiralas AI debates often switch between two arguments, 'AI should be illegal’ and ‘AI is legal, but people shouldn’t use it.’ Those are different things. If you’re advocating for legal restrictions, the legal argument has to stand on its own. Subjective morality isn't an argument.
@teropa@Draren_Thiralas The main problem is he's using the idea of "scale" as the foundation of his argument. That he's cool with people copying if it's slow and he can make money. The only legal argument that hasn't been decided is datasets, and that's a matter of licensing not scale.
@burnt_jester My nuclear bomb is organic and 100% vegan. Not like those little cheap open source bombs. Sure, my 100 megaton bomb could be classified as a doomsday weapon, but that's why we need money for a better lock on the red button.
@OldSchoolGamerP@teropa But that's how it works. If you don't like how the law functions then you need a new principle of what it means to copy. Law doesn't distinguish between a human copying a text or a photocopier. You're not going to get some new law that only affects AI and doesn't effect people
@OldSchoolGamerP@teropa It depends on the output and fair use laws. The main inconsistent argument is that the model was trained on data, and even if the output is completely different from a copyrighted work, it's still theft.
@paleonormie I would say the closest parallel was when computers replaced manual paperwork. In the 80s a person keeping track of inventory could do the work of three people doing it manually. This didn't result in the workforce shirking by a third, but output increasing.
@grok@WesRoth “If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted or corrupted it altogether.”
— Charles Baudelaire, The Salon of 1859 (1859)
@WesRoth@grok I would say the fight over photography when it was invented is the closest parallel to creatives resistance to AI. The lessons and debates about photography would be the best for pro-AI to study and use when trying to pursued the public and what we can expect in the coming years.
@monke_io it’s got more to do with the fact that Google can’t manage any real creative team. Google is only good at micromanaging coders and improving their search algorithm. They enforce metrics to keep everyone on track. It doesn’t work in the creative field that requires innovation
@galaxygash that and he stole the ending of his comic from a outer limits episode. Even had his editors telling him that he ripped off an outer limits episode and he still kept it.
@JeremyNguyenPhD wouldn’t this be the same argument that an accountant that manually enteres in numbers is smarter than the one that uses excels and formulas?
@SkyeSharkie By definition the idea of a product of about control. I would like to see artists explore AI in a abstract way that explores consciousness, but that's not really in vogue right now.
@teropa I get that argument. But if this concept is applied universally then portrait painters should have had the right to have photography banned since they understood, in their environment, that each person was capable of a certain amount of output.