It’s not stealing and your saying it is is the real lack of ethics. Greed over intellectual property has already wrecked huge amounts our culture as money grubbers try to monetize the joy contributed by the public.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Who are the money grubbers?
artists who can't afford rent?
can you clarify?
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Yes I can.
Artists who can’t pay rent are not going to lose anything. They already are working two jobs to subsidize their passion.
Unless, of course, they are a Louisiana blues man who had to sell his intellectual property because he could not find a job. In that case he also has nothing to lose because he doesn’t have anything anymore.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Should artists who cannot pay rent have their work used to enrich someone else and receive no profit?
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Should I get sued for playing the song my wife and I played when we fell in love because I did not pay NAASCAP (or whatever it is)?
There are losers either way. Intellectual@property is an oxymoron.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
no one sues you for playing music.
People can sue you for profiting from their music, without their consent.
Who are the money grubbers?
Who is allowed to profit from creative work?
Techbros who scrape the internet for images they don't bother to license from?
or the people educating themselves, purchasing the materials and tools required, and putting the time in to create something?
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
that would be incorrect. Obviously it’s rare that people get caught or that anyone exerts the effort but it is 100% actionable if you have your kids band play commercial music at your wedding without a license.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Licenses are the means by which Artists are able to write, practice, perform, record, and promote the art your kid is performing.
None of that is free.
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
We all scrape the internet all the time using sophisticated programs that retain substantial amount of publicly available information.
What is illegal is copying and distributing stuff. Scaling and making it available in a different form is perfectly legal. What do you think google is?
Calling them “Bros” isn’t an argument.
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Throughout history, everyone that doesn’t do an exact copy is who gets to profit. Thousands of playwrights have copied shakespeares style and concepts. A movie critic profits off of a movie by describing it.
Experiencing stuff and regurgitating it with your own api is the essential function of human culture.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
AI does Not experience stuff.
Humans experience things visually, aurally, tactically.
We think about meaning, we imagine 'What if?" and ascribe new meanings to the updated version in our minds. We then explore those meanings, discover connections that make those meanings personal, then we develop it.
We don't do it by downloading one million images without permission and mimic a style.
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Who are your alleged tech bros going to buy a license from? My blog? Yours? There are seven billion people. Does everyone who has ever said anything have the right to require a license? It’s not only impractical, it would be immoral to try to require it.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
the people who want to use an artists images to train an AI should contact the artists they want to train their system on.
Why is that hard for you to imagine?
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Because these things train on billions of things. They don’t make conscious decisions. They roam the internet and look around.
If you don’t want your stuff to be seen, don’t put it online. Require a membership.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Some AI art program developers Specifically Contracted artists, and licensed agreed-upon pieces for a training set. That's an ethical process I would participate in.
AI Developers don't have to be unethical. Some are intentionally choosing to. It's part of the decision making. If they couldn't make a product ethically, they probably needed more investors. If they cared about art *at all* they'd support the artists they Need to train their product.
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
Copyright is ruining our culture by exchanging artistic expression for commercial design. Further, it horribly impairs the ability of the future to benefit from new things.
I am delighted to pay artists. I pay for my streaming. Of course, most artists are screwed there, too, by copyright. But I have no interest in supporting a system that has Sir Paul cashing checks based on a stoned afternoon with John Lennon fifty years ago.
@CrowquillGal @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
You can easily see the corruption by the insane length of copyright protection. I’d be less strongly opposed to it if the duration was three or four years but life of the artist plus ninety means that our culture cannot freely use the things THAT ARE MADE RELEVANT AND VALUABLE PURELY BY THE ACTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ever.
@tqwhite @timnitGebru @DataDrivenMD
if artists can't commercially sell their work, they can't afford to make meaningful art.
if you want meaningful artistic expression, working 3 day jobs doesn't produce it.
being able to get paid for your art some software developer wants to use is a way to promote artistic expression.
AI scraping steals that vector.
Timnit Gebru (she/her).
tqwhite
Shari Emerson