Gregory's Server
 107 comments
  @impooortant Sadly, I think it goes wider than that. I'm no advocate of IP law but commercial derivatives should absolutely be compensated, especially given the market capital of these companies.  @i0null Cory Doctorow (@pluralistic) wrote a good column about regulation of web scraping, and read it as a podcast here;   @i0null FOR YEARS. AI is where my work’s stolen faster by recognized corporations and sold to those who are too lazy to steal them, themselves. People have complained because I work to ensure the digital colours are not irl.   @jfml oldest template i found is this one, unclear if original, welcome attribution. https://imgur.com/gallery/LDuPTk5 zero-sum interpretation. more like the AI is taking the fish, breeding them, and putting them back in the river ..it's a tool that artists can use, even for free  Your interpretation does not place much value on original creation. It seems that you do not mind AI using artist's work as long as AI reproduces it and makes it available to the public. I wonder how you feel when you create something beautiful and then see its value diminished because it is being replicated hundreds of times in your community, even with other people putting their name on it. the cat is out of the bag this model only needs12m examples from scratch. You need to be thinking 'how can I use this' not 'how can i stop it' (you cant) @walter4096 @paulschoe it's not breaching IP if they already own the training data. The questions about stolen surplus are legitimate, if humans are subject to copy laws, then why shouldn't machines? this is where its ambiguous IMO, we all carry traces of what we've all seen in our heads. e.g. I can draw x-wing fighters, darth vader etc from memory. but I can't sell those. some rulings have been made like this I think there's a compromise to be found that lets us all benefit from this new capability (ability to copy *generative rules* vs finished works) there's more at stake than entertainment. the world is in trouble, we have big problems we're not solving fast enough with our own minds. These image generators are evidence of visual intelligence, which would be available as part of other problem solving processes check this out https://twitter.com/svlevine/status/1714307592875647291 SD 'image edits' used to help robot motion planning given a goal (imagine intermediate steps) @paulschoe @walter4096 @i0null I'm not an artist, and your point is very valid. I think the previous post was meaning that AI could be used as a creative tool. In the original cartoon, I imagine an artist behind the AI cat, working the AI cat like a puppet (not, by any means suggesting, of course, that AI is a gateway to plagiarism) Please take these comments in the spirit intended. AI art generators have limits. I'm doing solo gamedev, I'm interested in using these generators as an assist. But they're nowhere near replacing a real artists holistic design skills (Why would they be at 0.1p/image?). artists need to focus on [1] what AI art can't do (a lot) , and [2] seeing where they can streamline (eg do a personal finetune, do img2img). whats coming IMO is a tool where an artist will be able to go from storyboard -> film, i.e. someone who does comics today is doing animation& films tommorrow. it wont be big budget quality, but it will be better than hand-drawn anim still images are indeed cheapened but demand for artwork more broadly is limitless with films,games,VR Now how this will play out more broadly is an open question. Remember, LLMs are doing the same for intellectual tasks, like coding, medicine etc.. we're all in the same boat use these tools, you'll see they have big limits. the human brain is a much bigger net, which will win? things will get wild.. bring it on, IMO @walter4096 I think you mean chopping the fish up, glueing them back together in different shapes and throwing them back in the river? That shit's dead and useless pal. chopping describes a destructive act where the original fish are no longer available. if its dead and useless, why are people posting these memes? @walter4096 If you would like to get pedantic about the analogy, take it more towards creating clones with scrambled DNA which compete for limited resources, damaging local populations, yet which are incapable of producing successful offspring. People make these memes to warn others of grift in an approachable manner. To those reading along: beware those who think technology can solve social issues. if the scrambled DNA makes them incapable surely they're no threat. if concerned about flooding..  @i0null @Dogzilla Beautiful. And now we need a 4th frame showing Nightshade* in the bucket. *AI poison applied to images to protect artists  @i0null@infosec.exchange thanks to #StableDiffusion hundrets of thousands of gerenative ai enthusiasts (including myself) learned that Greg Rutkowski is an amazing artist. Poor guy 😔 @i0null @tonroosendaal i wonder, however, if this will ironically make the artist's work more valuable. What humans value, is always a moving target... but is often couched in scarcity, it seems. @theoryshaw @tonroosendaal yes, once they've depleted all the artists, they'll have nothing left to train on. i think there will be a stronger market for 'AI-free' art, as well as for hybrids. @i0null You forgot to show the "Artist" cat fishing out of another "Artist" cat's bucket. All art is influenced by other artists. You go to galleries, you peruse books, adopt techniques from other artists, go to school and read copyrighted books and analyze what makes other pieces of art great. Then you go out and create new, derivative works that are based on your body of knowledge. It's called "getting an education." That is literally and precisely what AIs do. > No, that is not what “AI” does. "No u" Is not an answer. You're refusing to enage with the topic. I said that AI learns by consuming a massive volume of information. Some of it copyright, some of it not. It then creates original, albeit derivative works based on its body of knowledge. This is exactly how humans create art, build bridges, write novels, program in Python. How is it different, aside from "I want a cut of the action when a computer does it?"  @coupland @i0null There are vast differences in what humans do and “AI” do. “AI” image generation is most similar to collage processes, but with no actual intelligence. One very fundamental (though by no means the only) way it is different is that current “AI” models require retraining on source data before new material can be used, and has no integrated feedback. The “intelligence” you perceive is in the mind of the operator and your own mind. It is no more intelligent than a loom. @i0null @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru some see AI as a tool of a few big companies. but some big companies have an incentive to opensource their models (e.g. Meta is behind OpenAI , so to counter that threat, they've released free opensrouce LLMs to reduce demand for OpenAI) I'd like to see everyone running their own AI locally (text+images) instead of leaving it to cloud services ironically anti-AI campaigners are going to kill this possibility if they win @walter4096 @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru If the models and datasets are open i think that does exemplify to some extent. However soon they will be so large that it will be impossible to run locally. obviously open models are concern to those who want to gatekeep but also those who want to circumvent restrictions. There are legit safety concerns about all this but I’m convinced a few in the industry would rather talks about sci-fi X-risk as a way of diverting attention away from the more prescient risks. @i0null @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru Local models have a secret weapon - finetunes which can be done on high end gaming rigs. The bigger AI's do 'MoE' where they branch between several experts. Opensource models can in effect be the ultimate 'MoE' , distributed across the web. IMO open models are the way to ensure we all have maximum input inguiding how they're used, what they are, and ensuring widest benefit @i0null @walter4096 @velinion @oliverherold @porru The kind of prescient risks we should be talking about wrt AI are things like job displacement and wealth disparity. AI will create trillions in wealth how do we prevent those trillions from going to, like 2 people. But that's an economic & ethics discussion, it really has nothing to do with AI itself. Instead we're distracted by "how do I get paid for every ChatGPT search" or "AI=evil" because it drives "likes" or "ZOMG! Extinction event!" @coupland @i0null @velinion @oliverherold @porru yeah this is why I back opensourced AI. I'm resisting using GPT and giving mindshare to the less capable LLaMa's that you can run locally. people kind of sleepwalk into this centralization of power by becoming *too* dependent on cloud services. the good outcome is where we all keep buying powerful PC's and do as much locally as possible you could be paying for a big tech service (->disparity) or it could be saving you money (lift all boats) @walter4096 @i0null @velinion @oliverherold @porru > people kind of sleepwalk into this centralization of power by becoming *too* dependent on cloud services Just like how we've sleep-walked into surveillance capitalism and climate crisis. Why tackle tough issues when we can be lulled to sleep by shiny toys? Really appreciate all the perspectives, great discussion. @i0null @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru yeah regulatory capture is exactly my fear. I'm just a lone tinkerer at the minute - I see huge potential being unlocked with these opensourced models , and a bunch of people arguing they should be shut down :/ I've been pro-tech all my life ever since my first 8bit machine. I've always seen it as an individual enabler, and without being 'left or right wing', opensource is very inline with that. @walter4096 @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru Yeah it's such a shame that a technology with such emancipatory potential is more likely to hand greater power to the biggest players. Many people say technology is neutral but the application of it certainly isn't. I’ve been fairly surprized by Meta's commitment to open source but after that whole Cambridge Analytica scandal IMHO they're going to need to do a whole lot more to regain some reputation. @i0null @coupland @velinion @oliverherold @porru it's great how this emerged as a balancing mechanism meta, google, microsoft,apple all saw what OpenAI were doing, and panicked. MS bought OpenAI to stop them growing as the next tech giant(ie conversational interface) Meta then opensourced their own (inferior) LLMs ("ok, we dont think we can get to 1st place, lets at least empower opensource community to stop Microsoft dominating completely") 😭😂 (I want to laugh but it's sad in a way at the same time. Like an irony or is it even proper..) @i0null It is to some degree true, but even a human being has to learn and memorizes pictures, text etc. pp. There is no artist which doesn't build on the work of other artists.  @oliverherold @i0null A human artist is capable of crediting the artist whose work inspired them. And I'm being generous with the use of "inspired" here with respect to generative programs. @bersl2 @oliverherold If generative models are able to attribute it could have the potential to be the other way round. At least then it would be possible to seek permission and/or compensate contributors for commercially derived works. I say the other way because I know several books and training courses that essentially profit from someone else’s material and often don’t even acknowledge the original works. @i0null     @davidrevoy@framapiaf.org @i0null@infosec.exchange That's a very good one! We're already seeing this happening! 😆 This should be part of the original comic!  @Kampfdiestel @i0null Hehe, yes, as exposed on https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.01850.pdf , it might require a bit more of generations. Five (as in your panel) looks like accurate in regards to the graphics at the end of the paper.  @i0null @matthias_code Meme appropriating artwork complains about appropriating artwork. |
@i0null [chuckles]