yokonzoSilent extinction rule
photonic_sorcererWhenever machines have become better than humans at anything, we’ve still placed more value on the handmade items. Same applies here. Keep creating! People love your oroginal stuff.
I hope originals will have a way to copyright it and if an AI uses it for anything, pays the artist. We have to keep up with this, or it’s going to be a very dark world where imagination goes quiet.
You are allowed to use copyrighted content for training. I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven’t already. The EFF is a digital rights group who most recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
Also remember that AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train open source models, we shouldn’t put up barriers that only benefit the ultra-wealthy. If we weaken fair use, we hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep up. Mega corporations already own datasets, and have the money to buy more. And that’s before they make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off and with fewer rights than where they started.
How We Think About Copyright and AI Art
Artists are understandably concerned about the possibility that automatic image generators like Stable Diffusion will undercut the market for their work. We live in a society that does not support people who are automated out of a job, and being a visual artist is an already precarious career.In...
It’s probably easier and more correct to make the argument that AI is capable of generating both original and derivative works, just like a human is.
A sufficiently large number of humans would be capable of performing the exact same calculations as a generative AI, a pokes a hole in the idea that it is incapable of generating original works. That being said, there does seem to be a subjective cutoff after which the generated work is no longer transformative. If I create some arbitrarily complex model that happens to recreate the latest Banksy given a specific prompt, to the point where replacing the model with Google Images would yield the same result, it’s difficult to see how the work shouldn’t be copyrighted.
I’m fine with this conclusion because it’s pretty much where we are now. As an artist, I could study a piece of art and (a) create something original based on what I see, or (b) imitate it as closely as possible, and if you think the result is too close to (b), you take it to court.