Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

  • macabrett[they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    It’s incredibly different, because humans can have experiences outside of the art they view and that becomes part of the art they make.

    • Omniraptor [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      hmm so if the ai was trained on various e.g. stock photos in addition to people’s art would u change your opinion

      • macabrett[they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        No? Stock photos are technically just other people’s art? The point is that the “AI” we’re currently talking about is INCAPABLE of anything other than reassembling other people’s art.

        If it could have its own experiences, it would be an entirely different thing and it would be unethical to exploit their labor. Current AI is just really efficient copying that covers its own tracks by copying A LOT at once. That’s just what this technology is.

        Typing in a prompt to “create art” with these is tantamount to image searching on google and claiming all the images are yours because you came up with the search term.

        • Omniraptor [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and I think you might be stretching the definition of copying here at least a bit. They’re not copying pixels, they’re identifying common features in images and encoding those into the internal network relationships, except not only the features themselves but also how they relate to each other etc

          also point of order/etiquette is it rude to respond with two comments to two different points

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            also point of order/etiquette is it rude to respond with two comments to two different points

            A little, but we do it all the time

        • Omniraptor [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          huh, what level of indirection would it require for photographs to not be art anymore? Would like, random street webcams do it?

          • macabrett[they/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            I’m not sure I understand the question or how the scenario is comparable. A more apt comparison would be someone that goes around taking pictures of other people’s art and starts claiming it as their own. You’re free to take pictures of it, sure, but if you want to claim it as your own creation, you’ve cross a boundary that I’m not willing to cross with you. That’s how I see “AI” art.

            • Dolores [love/loves]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              i’m pretty sure you could in fact take pictures of paintings, with some connecting theme or context & redisplay those photos as new art. the line between a ‘new art’ and a ‘stolen art’ is pretty difficult to define

              • Omniraptor [they/them]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah we already had this particular debate 100 years ago tbh. there may have been a urinal involved