←back to thread

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 4 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mlsu ◴[03 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43575950[source]▶
I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation.

Unfortunately, it's just the opposite. It seems most people have fully assimilated the idea that information itself must be entirely subsumed into an oppressive, proprietary, commercial apparatus. That Disney Corp can prevent you from viewing some collection of pixels, because THEY own it, and they know better than you do about the culture and communication that you are and are not allowed to experience.

It's just baffling. If they could, Disney would scan your brain to charge you a nickel every time you thought of Mickey Mouse.

replies(31): >>43576033 #>>43576035 #>>43576039 #>>43576072 #>>43576095 #>>43576129 #>>43576200 #>>43576201 #>>43576223 #>>43576381 #>>43576435 #>>43576475 #>>43576488 #>>43576594 #>>43576625 #>>43576663 #>>43576709 #>>43576768 #>>43576774 #>>43576782 #>>43576815 #>>43576826 #>>43576933 #>>43577120 #>>43577458 #>>43577553 #>>43577827 #>>43577984 #>>43578013 #>>43578038 #>>43581949 #
masfuerte ◴[03 Apr 25 22:09 UTC] No.43576072[source]▶
I don't really care.

Either enforce the current copyright regime and sue the AI companies to dust.

Or abolish copyright and let us all go hog wild.

But this halfway house where you can ignore the law as long as you've got enough money is disgusting.

replies(3): >>43576118 #>>43576744 #>>43576858 #
dragonwriter ◴[03 Apr 25 22:13 UTC] No.43576118[source]▶
Or treat AI training as within the coverage of the current fair use regime (which is certainly defensible within the current copyright regime), while prosecuting the use of AI models to create infringing copies and derivative works that do not themselves have permission or a reasonable claim to be within the scope of fair use as a violation (and prosecuted hosted AI firms for contributory infringement where their actions with regard to such created infringements fit the existing law on that.)
replies(2): >>43576237 #>>43576748 #
1. Wowfunhappy ◴[03 Apr 25 22:28 UTC] No.43576237[source]▶
^ I feel like I almost never see this take, and I don't understand why because frankly, it strikes me at patently obvious! Of course the tool isn't responsible, and the person who uses it is.
replies(2): >>43576569 #>>43576573 #
2. srveale ◴[03 Apr 25 23:10 UTC] No.43576569[source]▶
I think the tricky bit is that AI companies make money off the collected works of artists, regardless of user behaviour. Suppose I pay for an image generator because I like making funny pictures in Ghibli style, then the AI company makes money because of Ghibli's work. Is that ethical? I can see how an artist would get upset about it.

On the other hand, suppose I also like playing guitar covers of songs. Does that mean artists should get upset at the guitar company? Does it matter if I do it at home or at a paid gig? If I record it, do I have to give credit to the original creator? What if I write a song with a similar style to an existing song? These are all questions that have (mostly) well defined laws and ethical norms, which usually lean towards what you said - the tool isn't responsible.

Maybe not a perfect analogy. It takes more skill to play guitar than to type "Funny meme Ghibli style pls". Me playing a cover doesn't reduce demand for actual bands. And guitar companies aren't trying to... take over the world?

At the end of the day, the cat is out of the bag, generative AI is here to stay, and I think I agree that we're better off regulating use rather than prohibition. But considering the broader societal impacts, I think AI is more complicated of a "tool" than other kinds of tools for making art.

replies(1): >>43577513 #
3. PlunderBunny ◴[03 Apr 25 23:10 UTC] No.43576573[source]▶
This is similar to (but not the same) as the famous VCR case [0] that allowed home taping of TV shows.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

4. codedokode ◴[04 Apr 25 01:45 UTC] No.43577513[source]▶
> I think the tricky bit is that AI companies make money off the collected works of artists,

There is also a chance that AI companies didn't obtain the training data legally; in that case it would be at least immoral to build a business on stolen content.