.... the artists are barely surviving anyway. I remember teaching my kiddoes to ask permission for using art off the early internet.
They'd write back, too, the artists. Fun times, too
@jakeyounglol lets just say the #Enshittification makes it hard to not call it "self-inflicted damage"…
@jakeyounglol @kkarhan Their type of copyright infringment isn't the same as copying a movie/music/game to watch/listen/play it, that isnt stealing
It is more like copying it and selling it, except the scale they are doing it warrants some of the largest investments in history
Which makes it a federal felony, just don't expect the law to be applied equally
A person will go to prison for filming a movie in a theater, but they can raise an amount of capital rarely seen in history, and walk free
"If the penalty for a crime is a fine it's only illegal for the poor!"
@richiekhoo @catsalad Ironically, they actually still need artists to create things and post them; because they can't feed ouput of models back in as input for too long without it destroying the quality of the model in ways that are very difficult to fix (at least for now)
And if these models were impossible without the original training data, the owners of the model shouldn't be OpenAI or some group of billionaires, but the artists who it could not exist without
@catsalad OpenAI says things like "we need to trample on the rights of creatives" while also claiming that DeepSeek is illegitimate because they might have used some of OpenAI's results.
Anyway I hope infosec.exchange is ready for the deluge of Cursor and Gemini studio monstrosities ready to hit the public facing internet lmao
@capriciousday @catsalad Yes, OpenAI is upset that they took their training data but due to the nature of how it can obscure the origin, they can't prove it; but just like with OpenAI stealing everyone's copyright'd data, its obvious because it wouldn't work otherwise, just by the nature of how these models work
The advancement here is building something that obscures the origins of many copyright violations at once
@catsalad https://youtube.com/shorts/sl0G1wuyY80?feature=shared
Stay corrected: “all shall perish”
Using AI does not make you an artist. 😛
Many websites now have added Proof of Work to fight them. Some generate fake content to poison them.
Die…
@Talon1024 @catsalad But they can crawl for all the images on the internet?
Seems like a matter of will, also, just because something is inconvenient doesn't alleviate them of the liability
That argument is very lazy (obvio in more than 1 way)
@catsalad AI wouldn't have anything to train on if it wasn't for the artists and writers.
The AI bros are just afraid that their business models will crumble once they'd have to pay for content.
@catsalad they would sooner say stealing is okay than give artists an inch of respect.
Go look for respect for the arts from motherfuckers who never took even one Humanity. Or, at least, took a couple as electives and chose not to pay attention.
@ASprinkleofSage @catsalad We don't even understand how the human brain works; we have not made sentience or anything that can actually be described as AI unless you accept a very recent change to the definition
So the hubris of thinking we were able simulate human intelligence, let alone god is very silly to me
- there was Prolog before LLMs
- there is Prolog
- there will be Prolog when all LLMs are gone
@catsalad the problem with the ai copyright argument is that ai training is a inherently transformative process. No single work in the training data has clear impact on the ai as a whole. It is only with the entire training items, their categorization/labeling, that produces a meaningful change.
Consider Photo Mosaics, ai are in a similar copyright grey zone.
@Rin3d @catsalad Its not transformative, its just obscured by doing much more copyright violations at once. By definition, LLMs and Stable Diffusion do not create novel things. And so more copyright violations they do the higher the quality gets; and just obscures the origins more. Without the training data it won't make images.
The argument amounts to, if you steal enough training data to successfully obscure origins, it becomes legal?
Any image is actually reproduction of many stolen images
@Rin3d @catsalad And most importantly, the same Copyright Act that protects movies and music would apply to them, and once they go over 2,500 USD dollars in sales it becomes a federal felony.
This isn't even just about potential civil suits.
If the law was applied equally, they would have to face charges and anyone else who profited from it, like building tools using the data, would all be criminally liable too
Reason being the music+movie industry have been expanding the scope for a decade+
@Rin3d @catsalad To be clear, I have 100's of examples of these models generating quite literally Mario, or Sonic; and they were not in the prompt, it was just related to their probabilistic nature and the amount of content related to those topics in the training data
That wouldn't be possible if it were actually transformative
It is better to burn out, then to fade away.
The AI industry won't survive if we have to ask artists for permission!
That's like saying the automation and robot industries won't survive without worker's permission and paying them a royalty for jobs lost. Oh, wait…. Too late.
@catsalad Think of it this way.
Not many of us are traditional artists. We use Photoshop. When AI tools become ubiquitous The things you put in really matters.
I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.
The instant convenient nature of asking for something and getting it without any delay would put a bad taste in anybody's mouth. Precisely because there aren't any good controls now.
When AI art further develops. Watch the people using it decry it further. AI art is very fragile.