MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the bad things you list, but why do you think it's the end times? Hasn't it always been so, in one way or the other?
Hans
ChatGPT
- Thread starter Roboramma
- Start date
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the bad things you list, but why do you think it's the end times? Hasn't it always been so, in one way or the other?
Hans
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
To an extent. But for example Stable Diffusion (image generation) is free. And somehow it doesn't make the issues go away.
Last edited:
OpenAI extends licence with Shutterstock. https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23791528/openai-shutterstock-images-partnership
There was never anything quite like this, or rather, never anything quite like what will eventually appear. And just like Amazon killed off its smaller competition, large "art" corporations will kill off artists that don't work for them in their dystopian "art batteries". It'll be like trying to get your indie game noticed on Steam times a million.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Just listened to this episode. I recommend it!
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/803/greetings-people-of-earth
The part about GPT4 is Act One.
It can also solve problems that you might think would be impossible for it, unless it actually understands a lot of concepts that humans understand. Like how to stack the following objects: A book, a laptop computer, 9 eggs, a bottle and a nail.
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
How is this functionally different from when humans do the same thing to train themselves?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
An art teacher assigns their class a project to do a piece in the style of Andy Warhol. The students dutifully get on the Internet or hit the library and study the works of Andy Warhol. Then they create their own piece.
An AI is told to produce a piece in the style of Andy Warhol. It knows what this means because its training has involved a review of works by Andy Warhol. It creates its own piece.
An AI is told to produce a piece in the style of Andy Warhol. It knows what this means because its training has involved a review of works by Andy Warhol. It creates its own piece.
Where, how, and why do you slip a matchbook cover in between the two? What makes them fundamentally different?
Do the students owe royalties to the Warhol estate for having reviewed his work? Does the teacher for having made the assignment which prompted it?
If not, then why should the creators of the AI, which has been programmed to do essentially the same thing?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not a lawyer but what law exactly says that they needed anyone's consent to use copyrighted works as training material?
A copyright means the right to make (and sell) copies of a work. It doesn't cover what people can do with a legally obtained copy of said work.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Sure, but what level?
The training of the AI is not a product being sold. Its ability to use that training may be, but that is pretty much the same as an art school training artists, and then the artists going out and making new work for sale.
What royalty obligations should the art school incur?
The point I'm trying to make is that in an effort, however misguided or unnecessary, to try and cleave some legal distinction between the two there is (IMO) an almost inevitable unintended ...or not ... fallout which will capture humans in the legislative web intended for AI. To the detriment of those humans.
Copyright law is already an overcomplicated labyrinth for which deep pockets are generally the main route to success in court.
Efforts to trap AI won't hurt those with such deep pockets, but I foresee the little guys getting clobbered. The net effect will not be to the benefit of the art community as a whole.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
How about the artworks being used by art schools and their students during the educational (i.e. manufacturing) process of the schools?
The intent, the process, and the goals are fundamentally the same, to teach the skills needed to produce art. Often art for sale.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Those institutions typically license the study materials they use. I gave an example of this exact scenario, as the company making the videos I described a few posts ago is functionally an online art school and I have already described how they are scrupulous about licensing any original art they use in their courses that isn't already covered by Creative Commons or similar.
No wasn't missing that. I decide I want to author a book about how to "do art", so I go to the public library and a look through hundreds of art books, taking notes about how different artists do this and that, I could even extend it further and look through physics books taking notes on how light is reflected from paper. I then distil these notes into the ultimate "How to do art" book and I sell that for £12.99 and retire a billionaire in 12 months. There would be no legal obligation, nor I would contend a moral obligation for me to pay a penny to any of the artists whose artworks I looked at and analysed.
I think this idea of "analysis" will be the legal lynchpin in defence of how they trained their AIs and whether any copyright was breached.
Er - they do state how it is done.
Or you could view it as "They're software whose purpose is to give access to the common heritage of human culture to those who in the past could not afford such access".
The rich have always been able to pay for the art they wanted, the plebs couldn't, generative AI means art is now much more affordable and many, many more plebs can now access what used to be the domain of only the rich.
Sadly this is what happens when the lawyers get involved.
They are of course trying to find some way of winning for their client and they are not arguing in the abstract as we are doing. The point here is that even though the works were freely available for the AI to "find" on the internet they were not legally on the internet. If I had found the works in question on the internet, even though I've done nothing illegal in finding them that doesn't give me the right to then download the works and publish them. So, they are claiming using the works in the training is like me publishing a downloaded work - it's a breach of their copyright.
I can see these types of actions getting bog-downed in legal minutia, so we'll get no useful judgements about the principles involved.
Indeed. For those who don’t want to read the article, they introduce noise that looks much like the noise you get when an image that has been compressed with a noisy compression technique is decompressed.
In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Glaze actually uses a compression technique to introduce the noise.
It is a pity that we don’t get an example of what a generative AI gets out of a ‘glazed’ image. At least I did not see it, but for some reason there images in the article that did not display.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Do they typically license all ... every single piece of art their students study? Everything in their libraries? Everything in art appreciation courses? Etc.
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
In very vague terms. To the point I simply don't believe it works.
The article wasn't meant to be an in-depth technical review of the software, if you want to know more go here: https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/ and https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/what-is-glaze.html lots of detail there.
ETA:
As to does it work:
https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/faq.html
I've preserved the link to the PDF of the paper.
Last edited:
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
That's what I call decent description ! Thank you !