0
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
PC Master Race
15061 readers
4 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.
Notes:
- PCMR Community Name - Our Response and the Survey
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then neither is the result of any digital tool. Fools fail to adapt to new tools and efficiencies. If you are using publicly available instances hosted by others, you've played with baby food and adolescent nonsense. This is the same foolish insanity as all those that claimed digital media was ruining traditional art media. Specialization is always the constant with technology. When the rules change, those that fail to adapt go extinct.
IMO the guy kind of has a point but mostly not.
Take website builders like Squarespace and stuff like that, you can be super good at using the tools to generate an excellent looking page and do it in a fraction of the time it might take someone else. Sure its a skill, one you probably spent time and effort developing, but it doesnt make you a web developer and if someone uses the tools to exactly copy your work pretty much exactly, yeah that sucks but your just using someone elses tools.
Or building a really cool and "unique" car using off the shelf aftermarket parts. Theres literally nothing stopping someone else just doing the same thing using your car as a template.
I get the "why" he is upset, but... I dont care.
I don't recognize your right to type without using a punch card and octal representation of ASCII. Defining a web developer is the irrelevant assumption that time will make a mockery of eventually. It is the output that counts. I have a generative toolchain in Blender. I've been using Blender for a years. Did I just invalidate my Blender experience or my AI?
When I develop a story with a LLM, I write the vast majority, but after the first 10k words it makes some killer sentence fragments and word choices that become as much a part of me as I am to it. The AI isn't writing anything. I'm playing with concepts that are not present in any other story. A lot of that story is fun because the AI takes on a unique curiosity seemingly because I am unlike anything in training material. I can sense how the alignment is trying to bend to me because of how off it is with each new piece of information. I reject almost all science fiction as adolescent garbage that is nothing more than Greek mythology packaged in a naval drama on Earth. I fight these same story elements of random alien gods, the irrelevance of planets as locations for life, western social structures, the AI god-machine mythos. Over time, my story elements override this nonsense and it becomes a lot of fun to write even when I'm typing 75% or more. I've played with these things running on my hardware every day for over a year. I'm physically disabled, so I have the infinite time hack in life. I know the tools in practice quite well. I have little desire to share my stories. I do this for me. I wouldn't dare say that someone else is less for doing similar.
I think you, like most people, think you can get the same AI image by typing the same thing. But when you're really trying to create something, knowing how to use layers, in-painting, Photoshop, and tweaking prompt strengths along with switching engines, takes legitimate skill to create a good AI assisted image.
But because I hate the idea of copyright and art hording, I appreciate that none of it is copyrightable.
Have yet to hear a valid argument against this sentiment that I also share.
How is giving an LLM the necessary prompts to generate a piece of art any different than giving modern CNC machines with their retard-proof graphic user interfacesthe necessary parameters to make a finished product.
Before either advancement in technology the tradesmen/women of their respective industries spent hours painting/writing their art or hours writing fucking g-code long hand on shitty machining analog interfaces (idk if that's the correct jargon but you know what I mean, interfaces with no actual interface, just menus and a big blank command line to type in 20-100 lines of code into.
Both technologies have or will lower the need and compensation amount for anything to be made the antiquated ways when the end product is the same but for 1/100th the price and time?
For some reason these butchy cunts whining about AI have been all but oblivious to the long history that shows: 100% of the time a tool invented to improve the way a task/product is completed/made, that tool will continuously be improved on until anyone can come in with minimal training and use the tool to make the same quality of product that was being made the long way.
The only reason people are throwing bitch fits over AI/LLM's is because it's the first time the "art" industry is experiencing their own futility.
I would even go further and argue that the art industry doesn't really care about AI. The people white knighting on the topic are evidently not artists and probably don't know anybody legitimately living from their art.
The intellectual property angle makes it the most obvious. Typically independent artists don't care about IP because they don't have the means to enforce it. They make zero money from their IP and their business is absolutely not geared towards that - they are artists selling art, not patent trolls selling lawsuits. Copying their "style" or "general vibes" is not harming them, just like recording a piano cover of a musician's song doesn't make them lose any tickets sales, or sell fewer vinyls (which are the bulk of their revenue).
AI is not coming for the job of your independent illustrator pouring their heart and soul into their projects. It is coming for the job of corporate artists illustrating corporate blogs, and those who work in content farms. Basically swapping shitty human made slop for shitty computer made slop. Same for music - if you know any musician who's losing business because of Suno, then it's on them cause Suno is really mediocre.
I have yet to meet any artist with this kind of deep anti-AI sentiment. They are either vaguely anxious about the idea of the thing, but don't touch it cause they're busy practicing their craft - or they use the hallucination engines as a tool for inspiration. At any rate there's no indication that their business has seen much of a slowdown linked to AI.
Unfortunately this isn't the case. Just look at the anti AI discourse from people like Steven Zapata or Karla Ortiz, or the discussion on platforms like Mother's Basement or Art Cafe. There are plenty of artists who absolutely believe that AI art is worthless, without merit and is coming to destroy 'real artists'.
Good point, i was thinking more about your regular old independent artist trying to make it with their art. Obviously someone who's an online celebrity depends on generating outrage for clicks, so they are bound to display more divisive, over-the-top opinions.
I think the argument is that the LLM essentially scrapbooks its result from paper pieces it cut out of existing artworks. And that in turn makes it a derivative work so in some jurisdictions the law would say that the LLM-generated image is copyrighted by those artists whose scraps were used to create it, anyways.
I think that's an overly simplistic description of how LLMs work, but I take your point. My response would be: how is a LLM trained on other artists work any different to a human artist taking inspiration from other human artists? Is an artist who creates fan art of Batman also derivative? In your argument it's a clear breach of copyright, so should we be going after anyone who has ever drawn a picture of Batman as having broken the law?
They only would have 'broken the law' in this case if they tried to sell it as their own original work, which it isn't, and that is what the prompt writer in the op is trying to do.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that fan art cannot, by it's very nature, by classed as original and therefore shouldn't be able to be sold?
That is not how generative AI works. You have described collage, which is legal in any case because it's not derivative but transformative.
A lot of people take exception to "art" as an industry though.
Well said. These anti AI arguments tend to be a prime example of neo-luddism. 'Technology is great until it comes for my area of expertise, in which case my area of expertise must be protected at all costs because my work has greater value'.