Mastodawn

Feb 13

@sjn
The use of AI is not relevant for quality. One produces good or bad products with or without AI use.
It is definitely dependent on the human side, whether or not her/his homework is done. Let me say that I saw shitty code produced by humans and AI, as well as good enough code.

Salve J. Nilsen Feb 13

@gisgeek I think that strictly within the software development field, you may have a point - under the right circumstances.

Sadly, these tools aren't _only_ used for supporting highly skilled software developers.

Just take a look at your profile photo - clearly generated! What do you think this tells people about yourself?

This is what I'm asking in the poll: Does the next person seeing that image associate it with a positive, negative, or no change in quality?

Makes you think, no?

Feb 13

@sjn
Ah nice example the image. Let me explain. Incidentally, I'm perfectly able to draw a self-portrait of myself in Moebius style. But I had no intention to do that for a series of reason, including the time to dedicate to use ink and colors for that (I'm an old fashioned amateur comic book artist). I deliberately choose to not doing that. So the use of AI says exactly nothing about me (i.e, it is not relevant) which is the point. Did you draw your avatar personally?

Salve J. Nilsen Feb 13

@gisgeek My avatar image was drawn by an illustrator on a commission. I don't have the skills to draw. 😅

(That reminds me, I really should reach out to them to commission an update)

Though my question wasn't about your intention with the image, but rather what the audience/reader associates with it, when seeing it.

I think that their thoughts matter, though of course this doesn't have to mean their thoughts matter _to you_. (And that's fine, really. You do you! 😸)

Feb 13

@sjn I understand the point of view of artists and creators. Being used for neural net training is not something many of them have ever contemplated. Which is fine, but licenses and copyright exist for that.
But it's a totally different matter. Again, it is not about quality, and I could cite that photography was not considered art in the old days. At that time, a drawing was art, a photo a mere reproduction of reality. Perceptions of such things change a lot. We live in interesting times.

Russell Phillips

@gisgeek @sjn

licenses and copyright exist for that.

Yes, they do. One of my big frustrations with LLMs is that AI companies violated licenses and copyrights on a vast scale.

Yet, when creators seek recompense for that, we're told that can't be allowed to happen because it would destroy the AI industry.

@rpbook @sjn
Clearly, a lot of training has been conducted in violation of third-party rights. But note that the violation, in most cases, has been recognized not for the digitalization — processing—destroying part, but for the use of a clearly pirated repository of digital content (see the Anthropic case). Like it or not, the training part is not, if not explicitly introduced as an exclusion in the license, a violation.
The same for FOSS code.

@rpbook @sjn
Also, for the GPL use, note that 'derivation' cannot be confused with a set of billions of weights. The key point is the possible use of non-FOSS code in training again. But all that needs to be demonstrated.
Of course, IANAL, but I see very little possibility of seeing such points in a judgment.

@rpbook @sjn
This is, unfortunately, also the main reason the so-called ripping off of artists' creations is pointless. If you buy a book with pictures of original creations, one can use them for training, exactly as a reader can study such portraits for their own goals, make hand copies for their own use, and so on. Like it or not, licenses and copyrights are something more specific than what it seems the idea of many people.

@rpbook @sjn
All that just to say that licenses probably should be reconsidered for modern times, because they are quite inadequate for some people's vision. If you have concerns about the use of such personal creations, let me say clearly: put them in your drawer.

jan Ki | 奇

Feb 18

@gisgeek @rpbook @sjn
pardon my French, but what the fuck are you blabbering?

legality doesn't matter for the question of whether or not you should scrape the web and abuse art for some uncredited heuristic amalgamation without any artistic vision or value

a couple of assholes (including users of LLMs) burning the planet for inherently disrespectful consumerism isn't something that should stop you from still creating and publishing, unless you've already given up on life anyway

Russell Phillips Feb 16

@gisgeek @sjn I'm very aware of the Anthropic case, I'm a part of it.

Part of their defence has been that if they have to pay damages for everything they pirated, they'd go out of business. And now governments are talking about adding AI exceptions to copyright laws.

Telling people to not share things so they don't get stolen is not a solution. It's simple victim blaming.

@rpbook @sjn
The truth is that copyright and licenses cannot be used to avoid abuses per se. They need to be defended in court, and I'm quite sure copyright laws will change, but you know that such laws vary from country to country, so the problem was there before and will be there in the future as well. In the past, changes in law always followed changes in technology. I see no signs of something better for the future.

Russell Phillips Feb 16

@gisgeek @sjn

The truth is that copyright and licenses cannot be used to avoid abuses per se. They need to be defended in court

And when creators try to do that, we're told that the law can't be enforced because it would destroy the AI industry.

They had the money to buy ebooks for training, but they chose to pirate the books instead. Then, having been caught in a clear case of copyright infringement, they're trying to avoid any consequences.