I didn’t downvote but I have mixed feelings about the message here and don’t want to engage with negativity for expressing them, so I can see why some people might want to just press a button.
I agree with the stuff about corporate capture of the web being bad, but the idea of people having a right to control even things indirectly inspired by their work (even if it’s a machine taking the inspiration) and the push to enshrine that idea legally is only going to significantly worsen that problem. Corporations are the only ones outright owning enough copyrighted content to use AI at all if that becomes the standard, and the idea that they totally control it anyway is wrong; there is a substantial open source and locally run AI ecosystem, AI art is not just DallE and Midjourney, and a large portion of the people using it are just individuals being creative and not trying to run a cynical business, but they are the ones who would ultimately get stopped by this concept being imposed, because they don’t own the copyrights. IMO if someone puts something out into the world, the downstream effects of that thing belong to everyone, not just that person, and the implications of changing that are terrifying. Copyright is already too tyrannical in that respect.
I respect that the author is mainly expressing how they feel with this comic, and those feelings are valid, but this is also about inhibiting everyone else from using an entire emerging creative medium and that I have a problem with.
Ah, I got you. Look, I do not agree but get where you are coming from.
My stance on this is mainly that this is not really a “inspiration” thing. It’s more of a mixer, as AI is nor capable of true creativity.
As for the copyright rules already being tyrannical - I agree, but this is the fault on to the benefit of the publishers. We still need intelectual property to protect artists (granted, for mich shorter periods of time). However, with (mostly) large companies running Ai, they are basicly taking copyrighted material of those unable or unwilling to put on a fight (because they are small creators, not publishers) and using it foe their own profit.
What about the fact that if such protection like they are trying for is put into place the actual effect will be that no one but corporations or those using their services will be able to work with AI art models? That’s the part that really bothers me about all this, it’s framed as taking down corporate power but ultimately increases it.
It could happen, I agree, but I would still prefer such a result than anyone taking someone’s work (especialy if they put it out for free) and then profiting of it.
If machines could be inspired, we would be in the midst of a crisis of artificial life and the rights they deserve.
You can use an emerging medium ethically. If the only way the new technology can exist is unethically, destroy it violently with a hammer until the dust is dust.
You do not need to steal art to get permission to use it.
I didn’t downvote but I have mixed feelings about the message here and don’t want to engage with negativity for expressing them, so I can see why some people might want to just press a button.
To be honest it’s hard for me to imagine a legitimste counterpoint to the message. Could you tell me your view, please?
I agree with the stuff about corporate capture of the web being bad, but the idea of people having a right to control even things indirectly inspired by their work (even if it’s a machine taking the inspiration) and the push to enshrine that idea legally is only going to significantly worsen that problem. Corporations are the only ones outright owning enough copyrighted content to use AI at all if that becomes the standard, and the idea that they totally control it anyway is wrong; there is a substantial open source and locally run AI ecosystem, AI art is not just DallE and Midjourney, and a large portion of the people using it are just individuals being creative and not trying to run a cynical business, but they are the ones who would ultimately get stopped by this concept being imposed, because they don’t own the copyrights. IMO if someone puts something out into the world, the downstream effects of that thing belong to everyone, not just that person, and the implications of changing that are terrifying. Copyright is already too tyrannical in that respect.
I respect that the author is mainly expressing how they feel with this comic, and those feelings are valid, but this is also about inhibiting everyone else from using an entire emerging creative medium and that I have a problem with.
Ah, I got you. Look, I do not agree but get where you are coming from.
My stance on this is mainly that this is not really a “inspiration” thing. It’s more of a mixer, as AI is nor capable of true creativity.
As for the copyright rules already being tyrannical - I agree, but this is the fault on to the benefit of the publishers. We still need intelectual property to protect artists (granted, for mich shorter periods of time). However, with (mostly) large companies running Ai, they are basicly taking copyrighted material of those unable or unwilling to put on a fight (because they are small creators, not publishers) and using it foe their own profit.
What about the fact that if such protection like they are trying for is put into place the actual effect will be that no one but corporations or those using their services will be able to work with AI art models? That’s the part that really bothers me about all this, it’s framed as taking down corporate power but ultimately increases it.
It could happen, I agree, but I would still prefer such a result than anyone taking someone’s work (especialy if they put it out for free) and then profiting of it.
If machines could be inspired, we would be in the midst of a crisis of artificial life and the rights they deserve.
You can use an emerging medium ethically. If the only way the new technology can exist is unethically, destroy it violently with a hammer until the dust is dust.
You do not need to steal art to get permission to use it.