So was it trained on his work without his approval?
That should be the headline. Assuming it was done without consent, which lets face it, it most likely was.
Edit: It came to my attention that Japan has a more open stance to AI training on copyright materials. It does however say that
Accordingly, the focus is that ingestion of copyrighted material is prohibited if the intention is to output products that can be perceived as creative expressions of copyrighted works, including mimicking the style of specific creators.
Not a laywer but all these memes created by the ChatGPT look like creative expressions that mimic the style.
Read more here
The way Altman whines about how much he should be allowed to steal people’s work to feed his bottom line, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
These people from the Silicon Valley see themselves as the saviours of mankind (look up Longtermism in Silicon Valley). Within their structure of believe anything is within reason as long as it serves the greater good. That includes anything from obviously breaking the law to outright genocide, which we see in action right now.
Of course since their moral code is already eroded to its core there are no boundaries, like “I shouldn’t molest other people”…
But one of the biggest issue with these people is the total disconnect from actual normal life and communities. They see everything as computer program or tech device.
Just like that millionaire trying to extend his life with thousand dollars worth of pills a month and daily schedules impossible to normal working people. When what research has shown is that people who live the longest have plant based diets and are active members of their communities.
Since when do rich billionaires care about consent??
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don’t owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don’t like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can’t have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
Edit: yes yes. I know y’all don’t like these facts and yet they’re undisputed.
Who’s watching marvel movies for free, legally? Who’s listening to RHCP’s entire discography for free, legally?
Not the people training AI, they’ve been caught pirating their data multiple times.
No one is. That’s exactly the point.
Llms aren’t recreating copyrighted works. They’re drawing inspiration if you will. No copyright is being infringed.
And how is an LLM trained to “draw inspiration” from an author without reading their books?
That’s exactly what it is. But it’s not replicating the book to sell that same book to generate profit the author of the book won’t get.
It’s using the information in the book to generate its own data.
Are you aware of how llms work?
Ok, so if the LLM was trained by reading the books, then the LLM creators should have to buy a copy of the books, right?
Because right now the creators are pirating the books to feed into the machine.
Seems this is legal now. Keep this in mind, when the next video game decompilation project comes along because that’s also machine-generated material based on copyrighted released media. That must be equally as legal now.
Everything was. Is …
deleted by creator
Hopefully. It makes cool pictures.
I said without, I wouldn’t believe they got his approval…
Shouldn’t’t need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn’t a public resource.
I don’t care about copyrights. I care about content.
Every paid artist could disappear. Content will still be created. Probably better content and products then anything created under any copyright and IP as is now.
Better content?
Lol
Lmao even.Absolutely. The Internet pre monetization was way better than anything today. It was funnier. It was more original. It lacked all the dumb attention whores today who only exist to profit like Andrew Tate, Rogan, H3, Jordan Peterson
Well, that’s one take I guess… Not a good one, but one none the less…
If we didn’t have copyright then people wouldn’t be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn’t be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I’m writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
If we didn’t have copyright then people wouldn’t be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn’t be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
The irony of saying this on Lemmy. Lemmy is piece of software developed and distributed for free to people who host it for free. If somebody truly wants to make something they will create it even without profit incentive.
You are literally typing on Lemmy. How much did you pay to use this? See any ads around?
Open souce devs would strongly disagree with this.
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict. I don’t believe I’m endorsing someone stealing your work and profiting. I just believe that we all should have access to information to do what we want and build off it. Instead we have a world where Facebook trademarks the word face. Where the birthday song is owned by a company and can’t be used in other content. Where we can’t play mini games within load screens
Miyazaki is my favorite angry old man.
Life is hard when you dreamed of being a chèf but got popular with animation.
Yeah it sucks for him to have ended up creating works beloved by hundreds of millions and touched and changed lives
he could have made some steaks and shit but oh well
Relatable. I’ll never achieve my dreams either.
he’s a shitty father though.
The funny thing is OpenAI’s image generator didn’t really do a good job with making a Ghibli stylized version of Altman.
That being said, there will be a downstream impact on media quality if there is no novel approach to balancing creative work and AI slop generators. Don’t think there is a simple answer.
Replacing amazing creative humans with bland AI generated content is not a good use of AI.
Ironic since the decrease of human made work (art or software) will decrease the quality or diversity of generative AI itself
Which the shareholders couldn’t freaking care less. They only need to get super rich in their lifetime.
In theory they get super rich, but in practice the early adopters of AI seem to be hemoraging money as a result of it. It doesn’t actually make the bare minimun content so they end up hiring humans to fix their bullshit and the end product is worse than just using humans.
deleted by creator
Artist will no longer exist as a species
Mostly true, but…
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn’t meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn’t be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can’t think of them right now.
And despite all of its other problems, it’s still not even profitable.
It’s a good use for me. I work with children and the things I’ve “created” have been significantly better thanks to mid-journey.
Before that it was just generic clip art, now I can make really beautifully themed stuff that was both out of my skill range and price range.
The artists, would never get money from me since I’m not rich enough to afford it but the children benefit.
So we’re teaching the children that only high level art is worthwhile and they shouldn’t even try to make at themselves because they suck at it and you can just generate it. Cool.
Well I don’t teach art so… and they don’t even know
How do you define better? More photrealistic? I’d wager kids could learn as much if not more from your own hand-drawn chicken scratch that has a greater emphasis and less distractions on the points you want to convey. They might relate to the lack of conventional quality that they themselves aren’t able to achieve as well. There is an incredible vapidness to AI art. Also it absolutely blows at trying to make anything diagrammatic for teaching. I’ve tried to use it to convey scientic topics that I’d normally use grant funds (back in the day when there were grants) to hire artists to do, and it was an exercise in purified frustration.
Next you’re going to tell me using someones artstyle to depict someone getting deported is not appropriate for the white house twitter
While I agree that it’s not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
She’s a human being that deserves a fair trial.
There’d be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
Lol forgot they call weed drug
forgot they call weed drug
Clearly you didn’t, because weed is completely unrelated to this story. You saw the word ‘drug’ and assumed it must mean ‘marijuana’.Edit: You know what, this response was pretty dickish. Sorry. Ignore the above.
Thanks appreciate your edit, i was speaking in general that they can call someone selling weed as drug dealer and kick them out of the country. So the word drug dealer in the US by itself doesn’t mean the person is gang member or horrible person.
Regardless thanks again for the edit! Have a good day…
Yeah lemme go to my local fentanyl shop. Because she trafficked fentanyl.
And? Plenty of countries where that’s not an issue, or at worse she’d get either a fine or medical counseling on addiction for a couple days https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-have-decriminalized-drugs.html
I’m all for drug legalization. It’s not legal, and trying to somehow justify someone coming to America to traffic in fentanyl, which is a straight up killer, is incredibly disingenuous. And Oregon decriminalized drugs and had to walk it back because it became a problem.
Like I said, I’m in favor of it, but that’s not what we are dealing with. Someone who crosses a border to sell a deadly drug isn’t out here to help people. And if some American rolls into Portugal and starts selling fentanyl, I can assure you it ends up in that person getting removed from Portugal.
Fentanyl is a part of the category ‘all drugs’. Some places like Uruguay have literally ZERO penalties for drug use recreationally, and they haven’t defined limits on the amount for personal use on anything but Marijuana (40g) so the judge would have to decide if the woman was carrying a huge amount or if there was a possibility it was personal use. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/about-drug-law-reform-in-uruguay
That’s great. I’m glad and I would love for it to be the case here. Legalization can, at the very least, open up the doors to the glories of capitalism as far as industries to help people with drug addiction, and presumably we’d get the benefits of good clean drugs and all that.
None of that has to do with smuggling fentanyl into a foreign country and your (deserved) deportation afterwards. Also has nothing to do with an administration who thinks it’s funny to post an AI generated image satirizing it. Both of those things are no-nos, in my uneducated opinion.
Which of those countries have decriminalized Fentanyl? I bet it’s none of them.
Weed is fine, obviously.
What part of literally all drugs did you not get from the list at the bottom mentioning places like Portugal and Croatia?
Well shit, I stand corrected!
like in other progressive Nations.
Show me a progressive nation that has decriminalized Fentanyl (which is what the woman was caught for last time).
If we’re talking weed, I 100% agree - that should be decriminalized everywhere.
I would argue that they’re smuggling in fentanyl precisely because the less dangerous drugs are also illegal, so there’s no oversight in making sure they’re not laced with the cheaper fentanyl.
This isn’t about her, specifically.
This is about the utter lack of humanity it illustrates.
The White House officially makes fun of her suffering.She is still a human beeing that deserves not to be made fun of like this.
Still less criminal than the admistration so very shaky ground for this claim.
All current drug problens themselves were created by republicans who they invented the drug war in the 70s intentionally to curtail free speech of Vietnam war protesters.
The drug over criminalization created the environement that directly leads to fentanyl being an optimal border crossing narcotic.
Drug dealers are more respectable right now than all administration members combined, even the “illegal” ones.
All very dubious for the most powerful country in the world, which rapes the entire planet for mineral ressources to call any human “illegal”.
I speak for all humans when I say, this planet would be a lot better without the memetic infections known as America, China, Europe, India, Russia.
Maybe if they all had a nuclear fireworks party the survivors would have the opportunity to learn not to build those monstrous egregores.
Still less criminal than the admistration so very shaky ground for this claim.
Sure - I won’t disagree there 😂
All current drug problens themselves were created by republicans who they invented the drug war in the 70s intentionally to curtail free speech of Vietnam war protesters.
It always comes down to the USA having their little 2-party system. They seriously need to fix that, and break up both Dems and Reps.
The First Past The Post creates TwoParty OneSystem-ism with mathematical certainty. It is winner-takes-all logic which concentrates power and makes it manageable, purchaseable
You got a link for that? I’m not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs
No, Ozturk is suspected for supporting Hammas - maybe he’s selling Fentanyl for Hammas? 😂 But if that’s true, out she goes. If it’s not, I hope she can sue their asses for defamation and whatever else can stick.
My bad, the illustration was supposed to be of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, who has been accused of trafficking fentanyl. On the one hand, it seems encouraging that they had to find someone who could more credibly be presented as criminal – hopefully an indication that their claims about the pro-Palestinian students and Argentinians with tattoos they’ve disappeared were not deemed credible enough by the general public.
Still, we only have the allegation of this administration against this person, so it’s quite possible she’s entirely innocent. It’s not like they give a fuck about actual crimes or making our country safer. They just want to be seen as badasses.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard. The future looks more and more bleak.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t absolutely require job for my life. I do require nutrients and shelter though…
All these job people are just barking up the wrong tree. Oh no my 9-5 is gone instead of oh wow now we collectively have less work load and should focus on resource redistribution.
Uh huh, so your going to grow and hunt your own nutrients then I guess? Build your own shelter?
I guess you could do all that if you had the money to buy the required land for it, but then again if you had that kind of money you didn’t need a job in the first place.
Zoom out man. They were being sardonic.
Do you really not see the difference between food/shelter, things that you WILL die without, and employment?
The only reason you need the latter for the former (and I mean, no you don’t but whatever) is because of how society is set up.
Your body doesn’t shut down if you don’t clock in to your job for X days.
I mean technically you are correct, but more in the “it’s not the fall that kills me, but the landing” kind of way.
My body doesn’t shut down because I don’t clock in, it shuts down because I don’t have any food due to not clocking in.
And yes, the only reason I need to work is because how our society’s are set up. But guess what? I’m living in that society bottomtext so I can’t exactly get away from it. Unless I have loads of, you guessed it, money.
Not to mention that in a society based on trading goods for goods we still need to work to actually get our hands on those goods.
We could go farther back of course reaching the hunter&gatherer time period, but I somehow doubt you want to go that far.
Why do we have to go backwards? We’re the most technologically advanced that we’ve ever been.
Your brain has just been rotted by capitalism.
Hah. you can be as “technologically advanced” as can be, if your society still lags behind significantly it doesn’t matter.
It’s not that my brain has been rotted by capitalism, it’s that I absolutely have no faith that we will ever reach beyond tribe mentality.
k
Well it kind of does because if I don’t have a job then I don’t get money, And I need that to buy things like food and shelter. And yes that’s because of the way society is set up but since it’s the way every single society on Earth is set up, I think we have a problem.
There has never been a culture on Earth at any point in history that didn’t have some version of money.
I know what you were saying, but you’ve missed the point.
There has never been a culture on Earth at any point in history that didn’t have some version of money.
What? Of course there has. Money isn’t something that has just existed forever. It’s an entirely man-made concept.
Hopefully Soylent Green comes fast to save us.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard.
I would say that’s a tangential problem. Because, you know, in theory…
But the deeper problem is ultimately in expertise as a learned skill developed over time and through practice. If you’re de-skilling work, you’re dismantling the tools by which we train the next generation of artists and production crews. If we were just replacing humans with machines for some route manual labor (like Pixar replaced Disney’s old hand drawn animations with a newer CGI look), the result would be a new style and perhaps less tendentious from route reproductions.
But we’re gutting the whole process of development which means you’re losing the pool of skilled professionals who know how to create CGI (or even flip-book style 60s animation) from first principles. That means sacrificing whole fields of specialized expertise for… what? This?
“A real labor of love”
Christ. It’s like people cosplaying as real artists.
I’m not sure Sam Altman even knows what labor is.
Oh God I just thought that was some random “AI artist.” It’s so much more cringe now that you’ve brought my attention to who posted it.
That will only happen if a society completely is reorganized to get rid of money or if they introduce universal basic income (at a rate that actually allows people to live).
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Just shifting the tax burden from salaries toward capital should make it less of a problem. When capital income is taxed less than salaries wealth concentration gets worse as workers are replaced.
But hey, GDP line goes up, so it must be good right?
Or, more broadly, when individuals are recognized as valued participants in the community rather than obsolete expenses to try and scratch off the books.
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Not under current business and political leadership, no. But with a strong union movement leading a next generation of working class people… maybe.
What about the transition.
Because this will take time to happen, and the thing about not eating because you have literally no money, is it’s a rather immediate concern. You can’t just wait a decade or so for everyone to sort it out.
What about the transition.
It’ll likely be a bloodsoaked mess, given the history of these things.
Reminds me of how millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks. The quality of products have decreased too so they break quicker which gives people incentive to buy a new one instead of fixing.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
We are not only losing skills and tactile learning and understanding, we are also rapidly torpedoing out planet into a massive trash heap. Which is a bit of a duh, I know, but still.
I for one have noticed the insane decline in the quality of clothes after covid. It is shockingly shitty now and tears faster than ever. Shirts and leggings I bought ten years ago still hold up while similar shirts and leggings from a few years ago already tear or unravel. It is shocking. I guess this is what will eventually happen to art too.
millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks
Planned Obselecence means a lot of modern consumer goods are deliberately designed to be difficult to repair.
More cheap plastic used for buckles and clasps. More glue used in place of screws or latches. More electronics soddered or otherwise made irreplaceable/inaccessible to an amateur. Shoes, in particular, leap to mind. Shoe repair used to be a standard dry cleaning service. It’s practically extinct today. Very few good ways to repair a modem sneaker.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
There’s a time cost to repair and maintenance that’s often frustrating. I don’t blame folks for opting towards convenience. But I feel horrible every time I take out the trash, knowing how much plastic waste I accrue every month.
I’ve seen pretty much the same thing happening in the programming space. In another 10 years there’s going to be a massive shortage of senior programmers who are capable of doing anything more complicated than the AI, and able to sort out the messes everyone’s creating with it.
All the companies not wanting to hire entry level programmers right now is also a big problem for those starting now. I can only hope companies realize AI is not a replacement for a human’s learning ability.
I think it’s intentional. Where you had to think to do something, you’d inevitably learn to think. Where you had to put soul and wisdom and aesthetic feeling into your work, you’d inevitably touch those things for other parts of your life.
There are people higher in the society, who think lower castes shouldn’t have that and will be fine with knowledge and expertise just sufficient to do their jobs.
They wouldn’t be so hellbent on this particular technology, if they didn’t see how relatively recent progress changed that curve of expertise for radio, electric engineering, all engineering, computer science, automobiles, home appliances, and what not. So they see this consistently works for 25+ years.
So they work to deprive us of practice that allows to do more in all those directions. There’s a moat that could as well be an abyss between what we know and what we’d need to know to make relevant things. That moat wasn’t there 25 years ago. The path from a novice computer user to someone knowing all DOS interrupts and what DMA and IRQ are was less than the path from a novice computer user today to making a simple GUI application.
(I’ve got executive dysfunction, so feel these things more, but I’m certain they are true.)
Not an AI problem though. Perhaps AI will help some people understand that there are some big ass problems in our society.
Time for TheLuigiAI.
With big asses being one of them. Obesity and it’s complications are getting out of control. I’m in favor of free glp-1 clinics and then free antidote clinics for whatever terrible blight the free glp-1 clinics unleash upon us in 5-10 years.
I’ve never read or enjoyed any AI works so far, tbh.
This is why I still have a coal furnace to heat my house. So many people just use furnaces without thinking of the displaced economic value.
Say what you will about the soulessnes of AI imagery (I find it very dissapointing), but this new technology is going to take our jobs argument is incredibly tired boomer-speak that shows a lack of understanding of history and a lack of imagination.
As a tool, it should be highly useful to artists to help them create things. However, the fact that these algorithms (I don’t care to call them AI because they aren’t) are stealing people’s work and then shitting out mediocre garbage and the people in the creative industry who tend to finance such things start thinking that “these machines can just do what an artist can so why pay for an artist” is the problem.
What if it allows other creative people to create newer works rather than these few people. Could spell a new Renaissance of creativity that didn’t exist before. Lots of people have great stories to tell but lacked artistic ability or resources.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
Eh? Of course you could.
You think you could?
I think the minute it gets popular the lawyers start getting paid
Ever hear of Avalanches? Their music is incredible and it’s made entirely from samples, including some from well known artists such as the Beatles.
Though they are kind of the exception as their second album took 16 years to complete, in no small part due to asking permission for every sample.
But there’s entire genres of music that either utilize samples, or are literally constructed completely from them.
Girl Talk is another one that comes to mind. It’s pretty much entire albums full of mashups.
DJ Shadow is a legend who, I believe, only uses vinyl for sampling.
Hip hop would not have survived without sampling. Listen to Madlib and J Dilla. Check out Wu-Tang Clan and listen to some of RZA’s beats.
Check out MF DOOM’s producer alter ego (Metal Fingers). Dude put out an entire series of instrumental tracks made using samples called “Special Herbs,” that both he and other hip hop artists have used for backing tracks.
Beastie Boys were one of the first to do it with Paul’s Boutique.
I would bet that the majority of music that’s out there that is sample-based has not been approved by the original owners of the pieces. They only really get targeted if it becomes popular, which is why Avalanches chose to go the route of getting approvals.
See this is the (well, one major) problem with copyright.
Imaginary property for me (“AI” goons), not for thee (actual artists).
Unfathomably based
Ya. These are the same people that continually try to take down Team Four Star for their satirization of DBZ because it made is actually better in many ways, from a country that has some of the worst satire and free use laws in the world.
Creators of copyrighted material in Japan can literally sue someone from making fun of their material.
Pardon me if I don’t take their crocodile tears seriously.
i hate how brainwashed westerners are. will go on a diatribe about the importance of free speech and then rabidly defend copyright as if it isn’t directly contrary to the idea of freedom of information, all in the same breath.
inb4 that’s a description of every reply to this comment.
I don’t see an issue.
Let’s say I write a book and it starts getting popular. A big publisher notices and makes a nicer looking book that’s a direct copy and runs a marketing campaign and it goes viral. It turns into a movie, video game, and has tons of merch. The publisher makes tons of money and I get nothing.
Is that really the future you want?
Copyright grants a temporary monopoly on a work, and that’s a good thing because it protects people from large corporations that have much more resources than them.
The problem with copyright is that it lasts too long, not that it exists. We need to cut copyright substantially (say, 10-20 years), but not throw it out altogether.
I mean it checks, the idea of property and owning it is more important than anything else. The entire economic system is based around that. It makes sense that something that is free in action and in cost isn’t welcomed in such a money driven society.
Pretty sure you don’t understand the difference between copywrite and freedom of speech. But that’s ok.
“You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can’t share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn’t want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do.”
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn’t some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you’re right it course the company is hording it.
Yep! I’m okay with that, intellectual property is theft, and is even more so when copying is nothing but flipping a 0 into a 1. Everyone online has the right to “steal” the words on the screen I “made”.
Copyright is theft of the public. The companies owning your favorite media isn’t going to fuck you, let alone give you anything but the privilege to charge you for the licence to borrow media until its inconvenient to them.
Right. So you also don’t understand what copyright is. Jesus. What is with you people.
“Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive control over its use and distribution for a limited time. This includes the rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and adapt the work. It protects literary, artistic, musical, and other creative works, preventing unauthorized use.”
I don’t understand what’s so confusing about this.
I don’t understand what’s so confusing about wanting to make art of anything you want, including based off of Disney or whatever you want.
Sorry that me pirating something doesn’t hurt their bottom dollar but they lobby to arrest people like it does.
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
Yes. Thank you. You definitely don’t not only understand the difference between copyright and the freedom of speech you also fail to grasp simple concepts like freedom, commodity, and owned.
Not only that you invented a definition of your own to suit your needs to further your argument which you don’t even understand in its most fundamental state.
So you can be simply dismissed without any further adu.
So pokemon has lèse-majesté protections ?
deleted by creator
The article isn’t about the new animation but about how the old clip has resurfaced and is retreading its origin and how it relates to recent events.
Now coming back to Miyazaki’s thoughts on AI, a widely shared video from 2016 shows the legendary animator reacting with disgust to an AI-generated animation demo.
The animation in the clip reminded him about his friend’s disability and how the creators of the animation didn’t regard ableism while making it. Later in the clip, one of the creators had expressed that they would like to create a machine that could “draw pictures as humans do” and Miyazaki was depicted as displeased after this statement.
The article doesn’t go into if there were any comments from Miyazaki on the Ghibli-style image.
I thought it was John dunsworth
Suh-NAP!
While AI is boosting productivity and is amazing, it also appeals to our worst inner instincts of giving in to authority and outsourcing and taking credit for others’ work.
Edit2: forgot this is the luddite thread:D
Nah AI is just garbo in general. Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
Idk, AI generated boilerplate code via Copilot and similar utilities have been useful. I wouldn’t trust it to build an entire system, but it does alright at automating mundane shit.
AI in creative fields might be a different story.
Exactly! It’s all about knowing its limitations and how to use it. If one believes AI responses over their own judgment, they lose, if one uses it to “do all the work for them”, they lose, if one uses it to steal artwork from others, well, we all lose. But it tells much more about humans than AI itself.
AI code has singlehandedly increased vulnerabilities across every industry because the shit code is pushed by people who don’t know what they’re doing.
Net Negative.
You said ANY productivity. It sounds like you mean amateur productivity.
I think it is you who forgot what I said. AI is useless.
Two people have told you that AI can be useful, but not if used by people who don’t know what they’re doing. It boosts the productivity of people who know the field they’re working in, and know the strengths and weaknesses of AI.
You ignore it and say that because some people don’t know how to use it, it’s completely useless.
I said any productivity gains are offset by loss of quality and capability, and I actually think that’s especially true in your coding example due to large measurable increase in security flaws.
You gave a shit example and now you’re tripling down on it.
Nah. Humans are “garbo” in general.
Skill Issue
It’s an insight and integrity issue.
Lmao you really came back after that ratio?
Only children think that discussions are settled by “internet approval points”, and it’s a very nice demonstration of my take above, so thanks!:)
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I’m aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Tell me you’ve never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you’ve never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message. If AI were personified in one of their movies, it’d be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It’d be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It’s just so contrary to the message they put out.
A message about technology isn’t the same as labeling AI as “an insult to life itself.”
This guy simply sound like a bigot. His studio is going to rely on AI in any case through the software they are using. If they use photoshop they are already using AI.
I’m at such a loss for words having read such ignorance spouted as truth. You are truly a master sophist.
Where’s the “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message in Kiki’s Delivery Service?
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn’t say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A “theme” or “motif”, if you will.
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people’s work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
Bigoted against a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
If you throw AI at your hand draw 20 frames per second you are going to get the smoothest film ever and that’s just a stupid example. You can use AI for a thousand things already from the story boards to your final work.
a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
This type of comparison makes no sense: with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t. You just ask the mighty machine what you want and it’ll spit processed garbage heavily approximating what you asked for. You could try fixing the output yourself, but at that point it’s no longer just AI, it becomes a mix of digital art and AI “art” with all the other problems the latter carries with it such as copyright, constant output reprocessing and especially energy consumption as making one crappy looking output takes way too much power for it to be viable in the long term.
with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn’t?
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the “romantic” part is essential because that’s what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn’t just about making something “pretty”, that’s something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don’t understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn’t carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there’s no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
Why not both?
Yes, only one thing can be an “insult to life”. GOOD point.
I think we all agree here that japanese work ethics are shit
Do you know the context of the quote?
I don’t see mathematicians pitching a fit that lesser skilled people can use calculators to produce their results. I don’t understand the artists’ complaining that AI allows the lesser skilled people to produce an image of their ideas.
As always, the problem isn’t the tech. The problem is capitalism forcing people into competing with the tech.
I don’t think you have a good handle on what mathematicians do.
Nor what artists really do
It’s a metaphor.
But also, the distinction may become irrelevant: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-close-are-computers-to-automating-mathematical-reasoning-20200827/
I don’t see mathematicians pitching a fit that lesser skilled people can use calculators to produce their results. I don’t understand the artists’ complaining that AI allows the lesser skilled people to produce an image of their ideas.
Dumbest analogy I’ve seen in a minute.
But art is also one of the most fundamental things everyone learns to do. Literal children learn to do art, and doodling is something everyone knows how to do.
Although I do think that the issue is exacerbated by the enthusiast-types who will tune a model on someone’s work as a form of vengeance, and smugly brag about how they can have the computer crunch out something approximating their work.
They’re not replicating children’s art. It’s complex art that takes more study to produce. Children learn math, too. Calculators still help.
