Yeah I know, but the press picks some rare cases and says, that this goes for all.

You know how it is.

Ok then picture this: A webscrapper is copying code that has copyright that indicates, that it is forbidden to modify this code, to publish it under a different name or to sell this code (for example a method that calculates the inverse square root really fast).

By using the code as training data, most language models may actually paste this code or write it with little change, because most language models are based not on writing something that has a purpose that is given by the user, like for example AI’s that are supposed to evaluate pictures of dogs and cats and is supposed to decide which is which, but they are based on the following schematic:

1. Read previous text

2. Predict, what letter will follow

3. Repeat until user interferes.

Because language models work this way, if I would for example only train it on the novsl “Alice in Wonderland”, then there is a high possibly, that the model will reproduce parts of it.

But there is a way to fix this problem: If we broaden the training data very much, the chance the output would be considered plagiarism will narrow down.

Upon closer inspection there is another problem though, because AI (at this point in time), don’t have an influence from outside in a sense like humans do: A human is experiencing every day of their life with there being a chance of something happening, that modifies their brain structure through emotion, like for example a chronic depression. This influences the output of a person not only in their symptoms, but also in the way they would write text for example.

The consequence is that the artist may use this emotional change to express it with their art.

Every day influences the artist differently and inspires them with unseen and new thoughts.

The AI (today) has the problem that they definitely retell the stories it has heard again and again like Aristotle (?) says.

The outer influence is missing to the AI at this point in time.

If you want to have a model that can give you things, that never have been written before or don’t even seem like anything that there has ever been, you have to give it these outer influences.

And there is a big problem coming up, because, yes this process could be implemented by training the AI even further after it already was launched, by reinforced learning, but this process would still need data input from humans, which is really annoying.

A way to make it easier would be to give an AI a device on which it can run and sensors as well as output devices, so that it can learn from its sensors and use this information in its post-training training phase to gather more data and make current events, that it perceives, relevant.

As you can see, if we would do that, then we would have an AI that could do anything, and learn from anything, which both makes it really really fucking dangerous, but also really really fucking interesting.

The problem is that you might technically be allowed to, but that doesn’t mean you have the funds to fight every court case from someone insisting that you can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to. There are some very deep pockets on both sides of this.

Nah all information should be freely available to as many people as practically possible. Information is the most important part of being human. All copyright is inherently immoral.

This but mostly unironically. And before you go Inzulting me I’m an artist myself and wouldn’t be where I am if I wasn’t allowed to learn from other people’s art to teach myself.

And this, is a strawman. If this argument is being made, it’s most likely because of their own misunderstanding of the subject. They are most likely trying to make the argument that the way biological neural networks and artificial neural networks ‘learn’ is similar. Which is true to a certain extent since one is derived from the other. There’s a legitimate argument to be made that this inherently provides transformation, and it’s exceptionally easy to see that in most unguided prompts.

I haven’t seen your version of this argument being spoken around here at all. In fact it feels like a personal interpretation of someone who did not understand what someone else was trying to communicate to them. A shame to imply that’s an argument people are regularly making.

Should digital artists not count because they are computer assisted, don’t require as much skill and technique as “traditional” artists and use tools that are based on the work of others like, say, brush makers?

My brother in Christ, they didn’t even allude to this, this is an entirely new thought.

They said IP, IP protects artists from having their work stolen. The fact AI guzzlers are big mad that IP might apply to them too is irrelevant.

Digital artists do exactly as much work as traditional artists, comparing it to AI “art” from an AI “artist” is asinine. Do you actually think digital artists just type shit in and a 3D model appears or something?

And yeah I’m angry when my friends and family who make their living as actual artists, digital and traditional, have their work stolen or used without their permission. They aren’t fucking corporations making up numbers about lost sales, they’re spending weeks trying to get straight up stolen art mass printed on tshirts and mugs removed from online sale. They’re going outside and seeing their art on shit they’ve never sold. Almost none of them own a home or even make enough to not have a regular job, it’s literally taking money out of their pockets to steal their work. This is the shit you’re endorsing by shitting on the idea of IP.

I have no idea what you’re trying to convey here.

Well my knowledge can’t be used as a tool of surveillance by the government and the corporations and I have my own feelings intent and everything in between. AI is artifical inteligence, Ai is not an artificial person. AI doesn’t have thoughts, feelings or ideals. AI is a tool, an empty shell that is used to justify stealing data and survelience.

Yet we live in a world where people will profit from the work and creativity of others without paying any of it back to the creator. Creating something is work, and we don’t live in a post-scarcity communist utopia. The issue is the “little guy” always getting fucked over in a system that’s pay-to-play.

Donating effort to the greater good of society is commendable, but people also deserve to be compensated for their work. Devaluing the labor of small creators is scummy.

what a shitty argument. AI isn’t people

If you post your art publicly why should it be legal for Amazon to take it and sell it? You are deluding yourself if you believe AI having a get out of jail free card on IP infringement won’t be just one more source of exploitation for corporations.

AI algorithms aren’t the masters tools in the sense that anyone can set up a model using free code on cheap tech, but they do require money to improve and produce quality products. The training data requires labor of artists to produce, the computers the model runs on require labor to make, and the electricity that allows the model to continuously improve requires, you guessed it, labor. Labor will always, and should always, be expensive, making AI most useful to those with money to spend.

IP is only one tool in the masters’ tool box, but capitalism is their box, and the other forms of capital can be used to swing the public’s tools far harder than a wage laborer.