Glaze protects our work by ruining ai generative output. Not only should we protect our work with Glaze, we should avoid mentioning that it’s protected so they keep feeding it into the machine, effectively poisoning the AI :). pic.twitter.com/Bd6xvf3JWS— 🏳️🌈Chris Shehan 👓🔪 (@ChrisShehanArt) March 17, 2023
Check it out if you do art: https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/
AI isn't so much the problem as the context within capitalism, which the authors of Glaze probably understand to a large extent. They offer it as something likely to be defeated, probably just to get some cred by looking useful more than anything, as a stopgap before "regulation".
Maybe they are just a bit dumb and think that's forthcoming, but the reality of AI should be used to advance the idea that it should just be collectively owned and used, I don't see the problem with it. We do have to abolish private and intellectual property to make it anything other than an entertaining force for evil.
Th authors of the program seem to be aware of this. On their website they raise the point that in some time there will be an update to the ai that renders Glaze obsolete. They claim that it's only a temporary protection to artists while "true protection"(legislation, they claim) is created.
I don’t see anything wrong with preserving things that you create. If you want it to be exclusively enjoyed, why not? If it’s not vital to human survival or society to function, no one should be entitled to it if you don’t feel like it
Plus this doesn’t exactly ruin any artwork that is publicly viewable. All it does is make it non replicable by a machine. You can still right click and save image and spread it with others so that ability is not removed
If we're talking about a hypothetical society without private & intellectual property, I'm not trying to be prescriptive by the way, then I think there won't really be too many people sharing that concern. Human brains are remixing machines among other things. Machine learning generative models are trying to replicate as much of that capability as they can using computers, because then there's more net remixes happening. If it's collectively owned then I'd imagine the corpus of human output is as well.
This is most likely a short lived "solution".
AI isn't so much the problem as the context within capitalism, which the authors of Glaze probably understand to a large extent. They offer it as something likely to be defeated, probably just to get some cred by looking useful more than anything, as a stopgap before "regulation".
Maybe they are just a bit dumb and think that's forthcoming, but the reality of AI should be used to advance the idea that it should just be collectively owned and used, I don't see the problem with it. We do have to abolish private and intellectual property to make it anything other than an entertaining force for evil.
deleted by creator
Sorry my intent with that sentence was with using the reality of AI's capabilities to radicalize people, to make that "should" reality.
Because it should be easy for even theoryless people to understand the ultimate conclusion of AI under capitalism.
Th authors of the program seem to be aware of this. On their website they raise the point that in some time there will be an update to the ai that renders Glaze obsolete. They claim that it's only a temporary protection to artists while "true protection"(legislation, they claim) is created.
I don’t see anything wrong with preserving things that you create. If you want it to be exclusively enjoyed, why not? If it’s not vital to human survival or society to function, no one should be entitled to it if you don’t feel like it
Plus this doesn’t exactly ruin any artwork that is publicly viewable. All it does is make it non replicable by a machine. You can still right click and save image and spread it with others so that ability is not removed
If we're talking about a hypothetical society without private & intellectual property, I'm not trying to be prescriptive by the way, then I think there won't really be too many people sharing that concern. Human brains are remixing machines among other things. Machine learning generative models are trying to replicate as much of that capability as they can using computers, because then there's more net remixes happening. If it's collectively owned then I'd imagine the corpus of human output is as well.