• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Artificial Intelligence

Ron Obvious said:
Non-sequitur, I fear. Maybe you meant "NOT stealing"?
Click to expand...
No, I meant stealing. The AI steals from artists, then it's forced to make it look like it isn't stealing, probably by incorporating MORE stolen artwork, rather than less. It's a tracing machine with limiters to keep it away from copyright law.

It would be like me tracing over a Spiderman comic, then coloring it in differently (but the AI doesn't even do that on its own).
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
No, I meant stealing. The AI steals from artists, then it's forced to make it look like it isn't stealing, probably by incorporating MORE stolen artwork, rather than less. It's a tracing machine with limiters to keep it away from copyright law.
Click to expand...
It's not tracing machine. Diffusion synthesis can't reproduce original picture. But Disney doesn't own specific pictures. They own the whole idea of Darth Vader. I can't draw a Darth Vader and sell it. The issue is not that the AI can draw Darth Vader, nor that it used images from the web to learn. The issue is they provide generator of Darth Vader for money, and Disney doesn't get a cut.
It's possible to have list of copyrighted characters and styles, the same way AIs already try really hard not to be able to do celebrities, by filtering them from training sets or even poisoning the data set by mistagging the images.
But IMHO the system where copyright owners would get a cut would be much more feasible. Multimodal AIs understand what they see. You can give them 1 image of a person or a character .. and they will spit out any variation you want.
 
Olmstead said:
No, I meant stealing. The AI steals from artists, then it's forced to make it look like it isn't stealing, probably by incorporating MORE stolen artwork, rather than less. It's a tracing machine with limiters to keep it away from copyright law.

It would be like me tracing over a Spiderman comic, then coloring it in differently (but the AI doesn't even do that on its own).
Click to expand...

I've always thought that a behaviour isn't "stealing" unless you deprive the current owner of possession of something they already have. Copyright infringement isn't stealing; it's copyright or trademark infringement. "Stealing" in that instance is emotionally-manipulative NewSpeak cynically designed to try to change attitudes through language.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I've always thought that a behaviour isn't "stealing" unless you deprive the current owner of possession of something they already have. Copyright infringement isn't stealing; it's copyright or trademark infringement. "Stealing" in that instance is emotionally-manipulative NewSpeak cynically designed to try to change attitudes through language.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's your issue.

I was too lazy to spell infringment, so I just put quotation marks around "stealing".
 
Ron Obvious said:
I've always thought that a behaviour isn't "stealing" unless you deprive the current owner of possession of something they already have. Copyright infringement isn't stealing; it's copyright or trademark infringement. "Stealing" in that instance is emotionally-manipulative NewSpeak cynically designed to try to change attitudes through language.
Click to expand...
Scumbaggery by any other name is still scumbaggery. Why quibble about vocabulary when antisocial scumbags are doing antisocial scumbaggery?
 
Will be interested to watch this episode later:

www.theguardian.com

John Oliver on AI slop: ‘Some of this stuff is potentially very dangerous’

The Last Week Tonight host went deep on the creative bankruptcy and long-term concerns over AI images and videos flooding the internet
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"AI Slop" is the new word of the day. It's popping up all over the place.

A lot of it is just straight misinformation intended to deceive for one purpose or another (often simply to get your attention for monetization).

You see a lot of fake "heartwarming stories". The other day I saw a cat diving off a diving board (with perfect form) that was obviously AI and it was mixed up with other stuff that wasn't.
 
Olmstead said:
If developers need to manually force a software not to create copyrighted material by limiting its functionality, doesn't that point to the fact that it is in fact "stealing"?
Click to expand...
Not following your reasoning? The dataset it was trained on contained copyright images, but it doesn't store those copyrighted images, but it is generating a unique image that contains copyrighted elements. I can go to a proficient artist and pay them to create an image containing a copyrighted element, but we wouldn't say the artist because they've analyzed copyrighted images has stolen the copyrighted images, it's when they create a unique image based on their analysis that contains a copyrighted element that they breach copyright. (Caveat some images even if including copyrighted elements aren't a breach of copyright.)

I think it is good that this particular lawsuit is happening because it is different to the other major lawsuit that claims that the dataset contained copyrighted material that was illegally reproduced on the internet. Disney and Universal aren't going after Midjourney based on the dataset that was used to train the AI they are going after the outputs.

I struggle to think how Midjourney can defend themselves in this action, I think that they just might have had a defence if they didn't already sanitize prompts and censor the output of their AI. Then they may have managed a defence based on it being considered a tool for artists. I.e. we don't prevent artists from using a pencil because an artist may produce a work that is a breach of copyright with that tool.
 
Darat said:
Not following your reasoning? The dataset it was trained on contained copyright images, but it doesn't store those copyrighted images, but it is generating a unique image that contains copyrighted elements...
Click to expand...
Technically the argument is that it's not storing images, it's storing a digital code that is derived from the images.
 
Olmstead said:
No, I meant stealing. The AI steals from artists, then it's forced to make it look like it isn't stealing, probably by incorporating MORE stolen artwork, rather than less. It's a tracing machine with limiters to keep it away from copyright law.

It would be like me tracing over a Spiderman comic, then coloring it in differently (but the AI doesn't even do that on its own).
Click to expand...
No that isn't what the AIs are doing. (There are a few different root methods that are popular but in essence they learn abstract features, in many different ways, it's a statistical approach rather than the AI storing images.) They are creating unique, new images not serving up copies nor copy/pasting nor tracing images. And the Disney Universal suit isn't about Mi journey's AI simply copying copyrighted material it is that they are creating new images which include elements that Disney & Universal own the copyright to, and they are profiting from the creation of these unique images that incorporate recognizable elements that are protected by copyright law.
 
William Parcher said:
Can AI make original music?
Click to expand...
As original as most people. Certainly original enough for pop.

I got recently trolled hard. I decided to make a collection of light japanese city pop, to get rough overview about the artists, pick 10-20 best songs and make a playlist. There's ton of playlists on youtube, so it's just listening, and marking down what you liked, and checking more from those artists.
And I found a goldmine. Channel with like 50 hour long mixes, and what's crazy, I like most of the songs. But they don't list authors .. only song names. So I google the names. Nothing. Some of them I could find, but it's different songs. I try to Shazam them, google audio search them, nothing. It's because the whole thing is AI !
I play with image generation a lot, so of course I immediately spotted the cover art is AI, but that's pretty common. They are also quite nice (minus the texts). But the music !? I listened to it for few hours before I started to be suspicious, and the suspicious thing was how uniformly I liked it, which is usually not the case with the real music.

Here's one of the videos:
 
Darat said:
Not following your reasoning? The dataset it was trained on contained copyright images, but it doesn't store those copyrighted images, but it is generating a unique image that contains copyrighted elements. I can go to a proficient artist and pay them to create an image containing a copyrighted element, but we wouldn't say the artist because they've analyzed copyrighted images has stolen the copyrighted images, it's when they create a unique image based on their analysis that contains a copyrighted element that they breach copyright. (Caveat some images even if including copyrighted elements aren't a breach of copyright.)
Click to expand...
I don't accept this premise. AI isn't doing what humans are doing, no matter how much techbros want to make it seem that way.

If it isn't illegal to "process" an artist's work in this way without their consent, it should be, the laws just aren't there, and they will come too late, if at all.
 
Olmstead said:
I don't accept this premise. AI isn't doing what humans are doing, no matter how much techbros want to make it seem that way.

If it isn't illegal to "process" an artist's work in this way without their consent, it should be, the laws just aren't there, and they will come too late, if at all.
Click to expand...
That is not my premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gord_in_Toronto
Artificial Intelligence Solves One of Archaeology’s Greatest Puzzles
Replies
16
Views
248
Explorer
Explorer

Back
Top Bottom