this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
484 points (83.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
29786 readers
329 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Post shower toilet thought: Copyright isn't there to protect the author, it's there to create a multi-billion dollar legal industry.
Expect...no? Like, copyright gets abused a lot, but it's still used for its intended purpose of protecting small time creators and artists all the time.
Lemmy is full of people that have never created anything of value frothing at the mouth because they aren't entitled other people's creations. I wonder how long it would take them to change their tune if they actually created something worthwhile but got none of the recognition for it if IP laws didn't exist.
Published academic (mathematics) here - I suspect my contributions have some value ;)
Are you being paid to do research and publish it?
Or, it could be that for once we got access to the same powerful tools the capitalists got access to, and we're annoyed that the capitalists have been successful at convincing people the tech is evil so that the poors dont use it. (Morals have never stopped corporations from doing anything, so tech being "Evil" only ever stops the general public from using it)
Only the capitalists have access to creating stuff? You do know you can just put in the practice and get good right?
Oh yeah sure. Lemme just dedicate another 5-10 years of my life to mastering a skill when I only have a few hours free a week to unwind after spending all my energy working full time.
Edit: The funniest thing about this take is that the people who spout it think they are defending artists without realising that they are massively devaluing all the time effort and skill artists have put into their craft with the suggestion that basically any working class adult could do what they do if they wanted to
Edit 2: I know its incredibly hard to believe, but some of us just want access to creative freedom, and dont particularly care about the skill that gives us said freedom. Even if I had the pen and paper skills to make my art from scratch, I'd STILL be using Stable Diffusion at this point as it massively speeds up the process, I'd just be doing heavier editing of the results than I already do, and would probably train a LORA off of my own art
Edit: 3 Lmao entitled artists are BIG MAD. Techs not going away, and you're burning out the empathy of those who could be convinced to use more ethical options as they arise. Instead you want to kill the tech entirely, and so the new generation of artists that use these new tools will ignore your input entirely. Your labour is being exploited, welcome to capitalism. You want change? Fix the systemic issues. You want sympathy? Stop being assholes. AI Generators can be run on personal computers now with no connection to the internet, Pandora's Box is opened and cannot be closed again. Live with it.
Why do you feel you're owed the work of people who have spent those years without compensating them or even asking for that matter? You do realise that is unsustainable right?
Because I disagree on whether or not it is theft. I watch the program generate the images from blots and then add more details. The images are made from scratch with techniques learned from the things it trained on. Its not a 1-1 comparison to how a human learns, but its closer than anything before it has been. Most artists have traced or done other taboo forms of learning in the process of acquiring their skills before they have the skillset to charge money for their work, and they CERTAINLY have benefited from thousands of years of art history and culture. Its not as black and white as artists want to make it out to be, its not squeeky fucking clean either, as more ethical options arise, I will use those. But this tech is amazing and has the potential to dramatically change the art scene for the better once those with skills start adopting it more. It will allow more artists to break free from corporate sponsors, to take on bigger solo projects than they were able to before. At the end of the day, its Capitalism stealing work from artists, not the machine. This whole debacle has reminded me that what stopped me from entering the arts as a child was the elitism.
Fully agree on this.. but since we live in a capitalist system and until we don't anymore, it's still wrong.
With no input (in the almost totality of cases) from the artist. None of the artists agreed to have their work being used to train the machine and if their work is being used for that they deserve to be compensated.
The fact that you are talking to me right now means you are using a computer chip in some way, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to participate in Capatalist society and live an ethicly clean life. We all have different lines on which ways we'll opt out in order to sleep better at night. At the end of the day, fair compensation is an impossible task considering its not 10's of artists that got used, its quite literally all of the available images on the internet, Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of artists work, living and dead. Thats like asking a human artist to create their art in a vacuum, to forget all of the artists that inspire them, forget their culture, forget their muses that they dont even know inspired them. Even if you could assign a $ value and somehow contact that many people, their fair value would be less than a penny. For the core tech? Low numbers of art wouldnt work, the machines would need examples innumerable in order to start learning what the hell an apple is in 70 different art styles. I've stopped using artists styles as prompts, because yeah, there there is a specific artist I am grabbing from, and I'm not doing it with their permission, and so I stopped.
You can't just use Capitalism to wash your hands of every amoral action. I mean... clearly you can, but you shouldn't. The fact that fair compensation is impossible is literally the reason why ai is getting (rightfully) shit on by so many people. The fact that huge vc funded corporations went "yeah we needed a lot of data, but it would have cost us way too much to get it ethically so we just swiped it" is disgusting and the reason ai should be shut down. It's so weird to me that so many anticapitalists have been enthralled by ai when they are made by huge companies that are profiting from work they stole... literally the capitalist wet dream. How exactly is that fighting against Capitalism?
1: Stable Diffusion is free my dude, no capitalist profits off of my using it
2: Literally ALL of modern society is built off progress made by disgusting methodology. Look up Unit 731 and the Tuskegee Experiments for a small sample of things that have benefitted our knowledge of biology and vaccines
3: It wasnt hard and expensive to track down the permission to use the data needed to start the process of machine image learning, it was IMPOSSIBLE, and fair compensation in regards to image importance would have been significantly less than a penny for an artists entire library of work. I havent seen this much backlash towards Pinterest, which also just hosts whatever images someone uploads, regardless if they are the owner of said image
5: To reiterate, for once, this powerful too is free to use. It is not only benefitting the capitalist class. Any artist is fully capable of using this tech as well without giving any capitalists a penny.
6: Should we start asking humans to list literally every piece of artwork they have ever looked at when they post an image they made? Because its similar levels of influence. The images the machines learned on are not stored in the code, the lessons learned are. All works produced are derivatives, and not rips or traced
7: The arguement the pro artist side makes is never 'lets make this tech ethically cleaner', its 'lets kill this tech in its cradle because we dont like its origin. Which is elitist and privileged, OF COURSE artists dont need this tech or see immediate use for it, they already have the skills to acces their creative freedom. Others like me arent as privileged, hence why there are a LOT of people celebrating having a tool that gives us access such freedom. So no, I dont owe these artists any more than those artists owe disney for the movies they watched growing up that inspired them to start creating. They dont have a monopoly on creative imagery anymore, and their reaction to that has made me lose a lot of empathy towards them. Because they are not entitled to my money, not entitled to my empathy, and I'm not the one taking their jobs away, nor am I enriching any of the ones who are by using a free piece of software. I'm not even adding to their competition, as I'm not selling anything that I make, I'm only making it for myself and my friends.
8: Again, why is the line being drawn now, when this arguement applies to literally EVERY advancement in tech. Yes, we should aim for better, but why isnt that ideal being applied equally to all fields?
TL:DR edit: Work with us to make and transition to an more ethically clear tool, and a lot of us will agree and follow. Continue to call us theives and entitled and try and just kill the tech in its cradle, and we'll call you out on your hypocrisy, and ignore you, as well as eventually replace you as the workfield adapts and integrates, only for the cycle to repeat when new tech replaces AI Tech
FWIW I've been creating IP as a career for a long time. I still want what OP wants, a UBI instead.
This is where people usually suggest that I start unilaterally sharing my work right now, ignoring the economic assumptions behind why a UBI would be necessary to replace IP.
I'm in your same position and fully agree. An UBI would be way better... but until that exists it's not right that people make use of my work for their own profit.