Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

  • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
    ·
    7 months ago

    It's incredibly different, because humans can have experiences outside of the art they view and that becomes part of the art they make.

    • Omniraptor [they/them]
      ·
      7 months ago

      hmm so if the ai was trained on various e.g. stock photos in addition to people's art would u change your opinion

      • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
        ·
        7 months ago

        No? Stock photos are technically just other people's art? The point is that the "AI" we're currently talking about is INCAPABLE of anything other than reassembling other people's art.

        If it could have its own experiences, it would be an entirely different thing and it would be unethical to exploit their labor. Current AI is just really efficient copying that covers its own tracks by copying A LOT at once. That's just what this technology is.

        Typing in a prompt to "create art" with these is tantamount to image searching on google and claiming all the images are yours because you came up with the search term.

        • Omniraptor [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          and I think you might be stretching the definition of copying here at least a bit. They're not copying pixels, they're identifying common features in images and encoding those into the internal network relationships, except not only the features themselves but also how they relate to each other etc

          also point of order/etiquette is it rude to respond with two comments to two different points

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            ·
            7 months ago

            also point of order/etiquette is it rude to respond with two comments to two different points

            A little, but we do it all the time

        • Omniraptor [they/them]
          ·
          7 months ago

          huh, what level of indirection would it require for photographs to not be art anymore? Would like, random street webcams do it?

          • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
            ·
            7 months ago

            I'm not sure I understand the question or how the scenario is comparable. A more apt comparison would be someone that goes around taking pictures of other people's art and starts claiming it as their own. You're free to take pictures of it, sure, but if you want to claim it as your own creation, you've cross a boundary that I'm not willing to cross with you. That's how I see "AI" art.

            • Dolores [love/loves]
              ·
              7 months ago

              i'm pretty sure you could in fact take pictures of paintings, with some connecting theme or context & redisplay those photos as new art. the line between a 'new art' and a 'stolen art' is pretty difficult to define

              • Omniraptor [they/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Yeah we already had this particular debate 100 years ago tbh. there may have been a urinal involved