this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1228 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3485 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

The point is the entire concept of AI training off people's work to make profit for others is wrong without the permission of and compensation for the creator regardless if it's corporate or open source.

[–] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think I've decided to not publish anything that I want to keep ownership of, just in case. There's an entire planet's worth of countries, which will all have their own sets of laws. It takes waay too long to polish something, only to just give it away for free haha. Someone else is free to do that work if it is that easy. No skin off my back.

I think it's similar to many other hand-made crafts/items. Most people will buy their clothes from stores, but there are definitely still people who make beautiful clothing from hand better than machines could.

Don't even get me started on stuff like knitting. It already costs the creator a crap ton of money just for the materials. It takes a crap ton of time to make those, too. Despite the costs, many people just expect those knitted pieces for practically free. The people who expect that pricing are also free to go with machine-produced crafts/items instead.

It comes down to what people want, and what they're willing to pay, imo. Some people will find value in something physically being put together by another human, and other people will find value in having more for less. Neither is "wrong" necessarily, so long as no one is literally ripped off. (With over 8 billion people, it's bound to happen at least once. I feel bad for whoever that is.)

That being said, we'll never be able to honestly say that the specific skills and techniques that are currenty required are the exact same. It would be like calling a photographer amazing at realism painting because their photo looks like real life. Photographers and painters both have their place, but they are not the exact same.

I think that's also part of what's frustrating so many artists. Coding AI is not the same as using the colour wheel, choosing materials, working fine motor control, etc. It's not learning about shadows, contrast, focal points, etc. I can definitely understand people not wanting those aspects to be brushed off, especially since it usually takes most of a lifetime to achieve. A music generator and a violin may both make great music, but they are not the same, and they require different technical skills.

I'll never buy AI art if I have any say in the matter. I'll support handmade stuff first, every time.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There is definitely more value in hand made art. Even the fanciest prints on canvas can't compare and I don't think AI art will be evoking the same feelings a john waterhouse exhibit does any time soon.

On the subject of publishing, I've chosen to embrace it personally. My view is that even the hidden stuff on our comp ends up in a Chinese or US databases anyways.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I love that the people who push this kind of rhetoric often consider themselves left wing, it's just so silly.

'every word you ever utter must be considered private property and no other human may benefit from it without payments!'

I mean yes I know you're going to say socialism is about workers getting fair pay but come on, this is just pure rent seeking. We're a global community of people, if this comment helps train an ai that can help other people better live their lives, better access medicine and education or other services then I think that's a wonderful thing.

And yes of course it should be open source and free to all people, that's why these pushes to make sure only corporations can afford ai are so infuriating

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

So true.

This talking point, too, is so infuriatingly silly:

I mean yes I know you’re going to say socialism is about workers getting fair pay

Workers, by definition, don't own what they produce. Copyrights are intellectual property; business capital. Somehow, capitalists are workers in the minds of these people. This is your mind on trickle-down economics.