…care to contribute a link to their favorite site for an AI activity? I’d be really interested in seeing what’s out there, but the field is moving and growing so fast and search engines suck so hard that I know I’m missing out.

Cure my FOMO please!

  • man_in_space@kbin.social
    194·
    2 years ago

    Transformativity is part of fair use. What AI datasets do is much akin to researchers dissecting corpuses (I’m a linguist, data scraping is what we’ve done in the field for 300 years). When you put something out there, you allow for the possibility that people will see your work and incorporate it into their mental catalog of art and artistic process. Just because a computer does it doesn’t make it magically not OK.

    Either information wants to be free or it doesn’t. If you pirate shit then you have no ground to stand on for complaining about AI training.

    • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      143·
      2 years ago

      Hey I got no problem with referencing art, but one should at least give credit for works referenced. Also, the AI isn’t actually sentient, so it’s just a generative algorithm; it’s not actually creatively making derivative works.

      So piracy isn’t I feel a 1:1 comparison. At least in most forms of software piracy, the pirates still leave in the credits/splashscreen/whatever.

      • man_in_space@kbin.social
        2·
        2 years ago

        There is no functional difference other than the fact that a computer is doing it. It analyzes the common features of the source(s), determines how to square that with the prompt, and generates the image.

        We already have machines that invent things for us. A machine that makes art is no different on first principles.

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          1·
          2 years ago

          AI as a tool is not what I object to; what I object to is merely using AI to lazily slap together content without actually having creativity be the onus behind it, and then calling it art on the same level of art that does.

          In short, there has to be an artist for something to be art; and for there to be an artist, there must be creativity, which requires sentience. Whether that sentience is from a true AI or a human is irrelevant, as long as it is there. If there is no creativity behind the “art”, then generative AI in this case is not a paintbrush, but an assembly box pumping out bobbles.

    • Squids@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      22·
      2 years ago

      When you put something out there, you allow for the possibility that people will see your work and incorporate it into their mental catalog of art and artistic process

      …except when a person is doing it, they’re doing their own thing to it. They take an idea or two and filter it through their own lens and stylise it

      Think about it like this - when you do data scraping, you’re still interpreting the results. You’re looking at the data and going ‘ok from this I can draw X and Y conclusions based on this and that’. AI art is like if we removed you from the process - we just shoved all the data into a black box and it goes ding “X is Y”. If you asked it why that’s so, it wouldn’t be able to tell you. You can’t see how it works so you have no idea if it’s reasoning makes scientific sense. It would not be admissible in a paper.

      If you pirate shit then you have no ground to stand on for complaining about AI training.

      …don’t most people kinda agree you don’t pirate from small artists where piracy is actually hurting them? There’s like, honour along thieves when it comes to piracy, and this is stepping all over the little guy who’s actually hurt by this just to get your grubby little hands on something you think you’re entitled to

      • man_in_space@kbin.social
        2·
        2 years ago

        What do you think a prompt is? You’re telling the computer “I want to see this, spit it out.” I can ask Midjourney to draw me the Empire State Building in the style of Van Gogh. It’ll spin the gears and spit out the image requested. (Actually, I’ll do that right now and edit it into the comment. Here it is.) How is that not a derivative work?

        RE: Piracy, I’ll quote Sean McGuire, an artist for Marvel:

        I keep seeing the argument of “pirate from the giant names” with the implication that it hurts no one, because the company is so big.

        I write for Marvel comics.

        I write for Marvel comics, my reviews are good, people love the characters I’m writing for, and our illegal downloads are through the roof, because people think piracy hurts no one. It hurts the creators who have fought our whole careers to get through a door that traditionally has only been open for straight white men. Am I the best thing in comics today? Nah. My ego isn’t that big. But I’m good and I’m getting better; give me ten years and I might well be the best thing in comics.

        And that doesn’t happen if people pirate my comics and Marvel stops seeing it as worthwhile to give me money.