- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3613920
Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m hoping someone with actual talent paints the AI picture and then copyrights it
I like the comment that said the AI is the artist and he’s just a commissioner, makes perfect sense.
eat shit dude
I’m pretty sure there’s a misspelling. It’s spelled “douchebag” not “artist”.
Think he’ll try to use a llm as his lawyer?
Agreed.
Get fucked, you no talent ass clown.
Lol.
This article is annoyingly one-sided. The tool performs an act of synthesis just like an art student looking at a bunch of art might. Sure, like an art student, it could copy someone’s style or even an exact image if asked (though those asking may be better served by torrent sites). But that’s not how most people use these tools. People create novel things with these tools and should be protected under the law.
It’s deterministic. I can exactly duplicate your “art” by typing in the same sentence. You’re not creative, you’re just playing with toys.
So what you’re saying is that the AI is the artist, not the prompter. The AI is performing the labor of creating the work, at the request of the prompter, like the hypothetical art student you mentioned did, and the prompter is not the creator any more than I would be if I kindly asked an art student to paint me a picture.
In which case, the AI is the thing that gets the authorial credit, not the prompter. And since AI is not a person, anything it authors cannot be subjected to copyright, just like when that monkey took a selfie.
It should be as copyrightable as the prompt. If the prompt is something super generic, then there’s no real work done by the human. If the prompt is as long and unique as other copyrightable writing (which includes short works like poems) then why shouldn’t it be copyrightable?
Because it wasn’t created by a human being.
If I ask an artist to create a work, the artist owns authorship of that work, no matter how long I spent discussing the particulars of the work with them. Hours? Days? Months? Doesn’t matter. They may choose to share or reassign some or all of the rights that go with that, but initial authorship resides with them. Why should that change if that discussion is happening not with an artist, but with an AI?
The only change is that, not being a human being, an AI cannot hold copyright. Which means a work created by an AI is not copyrightable. The prompter owns the prompt, not the final result.
You’re assigning agency to the program, which seems wrong to me. I think of AI like an advanced Photoshop filter, not like a rudimentary person. It’s an artistic tool that artists can use to create art. It does not in and of itself create art any more than Photoshop creates graphics or a synthesizer creates music.
should a camera also own the copyright to the pictures it takes? (I seriously hate photographers)
Ah, but there is a fundamental difference there. A photographer takes a picture, they do not tell the camera to take a picture for them.
It is the difference between speech and action.
The tool performs an act of synthesis just like an art student looking at a bunch of art might.
Lol, no. A student still incorporates their own personality in their work. Art by humans always communicates something. LLMs can’t communicate.
People create novel things with these tools and should be protected under the law.
I thought it’s “the tool” the “performs an act of synthesis”. Do people create things, or the LLM?
the machine learning model creates the picture, and does have a “style”, the “style” has been at least partially removed from most commercial models but still exist.
No no, he created the prompt. That’s the artistic value /s
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
per Wikipedia
On September 21, 2022, Allen submitted an application to the us copyright office for registration of the image. Prior to the first formal refusal, the Copyright Office Examiner requested that the request would exclude any features of the image generated by Midjourney. Allen declined the request and requested copyright for the whole image.
So what I’m getting from that is his Photoshop edits aren’t significant enough to constitute a copyrightable work on their own and the copyright office was right to deem it a non-human production.
I’m just happy someone at the copyright office knows what they’re doing
Oh sweet summer child…
Oh tired reddit catchphrase…
Stupid tardigrade doesn’t even know how to play a violin
Stupid human doesn’t even know what a violin looks like.
He’s doing his best!
Good thing it’s got a cello then.
He needs to take a photograph of it and then copyright the photograph. Easy!
Another idiot who thinks “prompt engineering” is a real skill and not just another step those companies are using idiots for free AI training.
You ask AI to draw a ninja turtle on a skateboard, and that “effort” they put into phrasing their request well enough for the AI to understand makes the AI learn the 10 past attempts were looking for what the 11th got
And now it won’t take ten tries to go that route
Any “skill” by the user has a very short expiration date because the next version won’t need it thanks to all the time users spent developing those “skills”.
But no one impressed with AI is smart enough to realize that. And since they’re the on s training the AI…
Idiots in, idiots out
You don’t have a clue how ai works do you?
“Promp engineering” is as useful skill as Google fu used to be.
I completely agree. I wonder whether some IT bachelor’s degrees now have lessons in AI prompting. I remember in 2005 there was a course we had to do which could’ve been labeled “[shitty] Google-Fu” or something. “information searching” is what it would more or less translate to. Basically searching using Google and library searches well. And I don’t mean “library” in the IT-context, but actual libraries. With books. Just had to use the search tools the locals libraries had.
Such a fucking filler class.
In my year like 60 started, two classes. After three years like 8 graduated.
I’ve worked with tons of people who do not understand how to effectively use search engines. Maybe this was done poorly but it seems reasonable enough to me in principle.
It’s kinda dead now due to enshittification but the vast majority of humans I’ve interacted with could use a class on how to use a search engine.
Edit- it could be made more modern by showing how to ignore sponsored stuff, blatantly SEO shit, AI shit, etc
Im old enough to have to learn to use AND, OR and NOT to be used on search engines.
Boolean operators!
If the class had actually had any useful information in it, sure.
It was not the greatest class.
I use ai when I use search engines. This makes the search engines better. I also use ai when I get spotify suggestions. I use ai when I use autocorrect. I use ai without even realizing I’m using ai and the ai improves from it, and I and many other people get an improved quality of life from it, that’s why nearly everyone uses it just like I do.
So, @givesomefucks , do you also regularly use ai that improves from from your usage? Or are you not a hypocrite who thinks there is something morally bad about specific ais that you don’t like while doing exactly what you claim to be against with other ais? How are your moral lines drawn?
I think you were downvoted by people who think “AI” was invented in the past decade.
I use ai when I use search engines. This makes the search engines better.
Thanks for the example!
Whether an individual determines AI “smart” depends on how smart the person is. We’re all all our own frame of reference.
I have no doubt AI impresses you every day of your life, even stuff that’s not AI apparently, because not all of your examples were.
