Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts David's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
David Revoy

@Tanath I find it problematic that you put on the same level:

1. Creators who love, hate, and interact with input within the zeitgeist and then get inspired (consciously or unconsciously) by that.

AND

2. An A.I. software that received a massive list of URL of images inputs+descriptions, without the consent of their authors, and curated by a team (with their own political choices).

I wouldn't call 2 inspiration but just massive stealing of data for analysis.

(edited for CW)

14 Dec 2022 at 22:52 | Open on framapiaf.org
5 comments
Tanath

@davidrevoy that's not my intention. I'm not equating those. People are conscious, emotional beings, while AI currently are not. There may be ethical issues w/scraping publicly posted data but that's a separate issue from what I was saying. That said, people can view the images, do analysis and use it for inspiration, so why can't AI?

The real problem as I see it is that it lowers the value of such work. That is an unfortunate downside but it's often the cost of progress from new tech.

14 Dec 2022 at 23:16 | Open on mastodon.social
webshinra

@Tanath @davidrevoy Furthermore, we should remember that copyright laws is a concession from the natural right of copying an sharing, not the other way around.

There is no natural right for author to control what append to their work after they choose to publish it, and for millennia (!) they didn't have artificial ones either.
Then… capitalism.

15 Dec 2022 at 2:51 | Open on pouet.chapril.org
raphael

@davidrevoy @Tanath very well put!

phrasing like ‘inspired’ anthropomorphise a heuristic that does a complex version of rote reproduction. it creates nothing new, its output is based wholly and entirely on reproduction of pre-existing imagery. overfitting examples to expose how the sausage gets made show this beyond a shadow of a doubt. experts on ‘AI’ agree with this.

and when the creators and owners of the material that is being reproduced did not license their material for that use, it can indeed be called ‘stealing.’

@davidrevoy @Tanath very well put!

phrasing like ‘inspired’ anthropomorphise a heuristic that does a complex version of rote reproduction. it creates nothing new, its output is based wholly and entirely on reproduction of pre-existing imagery. overfitting examples to expose how the sausage gets made show this beyond a shadow of a doubt. experts on ‘AI’ agree with this.

14 Dec 2022 at 23:21 | Open on toot.cat
Liberonscien :VeryQueer:

@davidrevoy @gekitsu @Tanath Overfitting is an error, not a desired result.

15 Dec 2022 at 1:25 | Open on eightpoint.app
Matthieu Weber 🇫🇷/🇫🇮

@davidrevoy @Tanath My 0.02€: I don't see a fundamental difference between a human artist's brain receiving inputs from what the person can see while looking at other artist's *published* creations, and an AI being fed the same creations although the AI will need a lot more inputs to learn than the human can do (AIs are still very inefficient at learning).

The morality issue starts when the user asks the AI “make a picture like David Revoy's”.
Maybe an “AI-not-welcome” licence may help?

@davidrevoy @Tanath My 0.02€: I don't see a fundamental difference between a human artist's brain receiving inputs from what the person can see while looking at other artist's *published* creations, and an AI being fed the same creations although the AI will need a lot more inputs to learn than the human can do (AIs are still very inefficient at learning).

15 Dec 2022 at 6:48 | Open on mastodon.weber.fi.eu.org
Go Up