Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is tough. I believe there is a lot of unfair wealth concentration in our society, especially in the tech companies. On the other hand, I don’t want AI to be stifled by bad laws.

    If we try to stop AI, it will only take it away from the public. The military will still secretly use it, companies might still secretly use it. Other countries will use it and their populations will benefit while we languish.

    Our only hope for a happy ending is to let this technology be free and let it go into the hands of many companies and many individuals (there are already decent models you can run on your own computer).

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, in your “only hope for a happy ending” scenario, how do the artists get paid? Or will we no longer need them after AI runs everything ;)

      • Buttons@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know. I only believe that things will be worse if individuals cannot control these AIs.

        Maybe these AI have reached a peak (at least for now), and so they aren’t good enough to write a compelling novel. In that case, writers who produce good novels and get lucky will still get paid, because people will want to buy their work and read it.

        Or maybe AI will quickly surpass all humans in writing ability, in which case, there’s not much we can do. If the AI produces books that are better, then people will want AI produced books. They might have to get those from other countries, or they might have to get them from a secret AI someone is running on a beefy computer in their basement. If AI surpasses humans then that’s not a happy day for writers, no way around it. Still, an AI that surpasses humans might help people in other ways, but only if we allow everyone to have and control their own AI.

        As the industrial revolution threatened to swallow society Carl Marx wrote about how important it was that regular people be able to control “the means of production”. At least that part of his philosophy has always resonated with me, because I want to be empowered as an individual, I want the power to create and compete in our society. It’s the same now, AI threatens to swallow society and I want to be able to control my own AI for my own purposes.

        If strong AI is coming, it’s coming. If AI is going to be the source of power in society then I want regular people to have access to that power. It’s not yet clear whether this is the case, but if strong AI is coming it’s going to be big, and writers complaining about pay isn’t going to stop it.

        All that said, I believe we do a terrible job of caring for individuals in our society. We need more social safety nets, we need to change to provide people better and happier lives. So I’m not saying “forget the writers, let them stave”.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with most of the things you are saying, but without some kind of policy to either give artist more power or money during the transition it sounds a lot like the “Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make” meme.

          I see you are saying that you don’t want the artists to starve, but the only things I see you proposing would make them starve. Even if it is for the “greater good”.

          Edit: It would help me feel more comfortable with your statements if you were to propose UBI or something like that so the artists have a solid ground to keep making good art and then let the AIs grow from that. Or just let the process happen. Let Artists sue companies, let laws get created that slow down the process of AI development. There is no need to make human sacrifice here. AI will get developed either way.

      • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be honest, I don’t think AI is going to get good enough to replace human creativity. Sure, some of the things that AI can do is pretty nice, but these things are mostly already solved problems - sure, AI can make passable art, but so can humans - and they can go further than art, they can create logical connections between art pieces, and extrapolate art in new reasonably justified ways, instead of the direction-less, grasping in the dark methods that AI seems to do it in.

        Sure, AI can make art a thousand times faster than a person, but if only one in thousand is tolerably good, then what’s the problem?

        • voluble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          AI is still very much in its infancy, and seeing the sort of progress that has been made even over the past 12 months, I don’t see how anyone can imagine that it will remain a small and discrete slice of the pie, that it doesn’t have radical transformative power.

          My vision - gen z artists will reflexively use AI to enhance their material as artist and AI become entangled to a point where they’re impossible to distinguish. AI art will increase in fidelity, until it exceeds the fidelity that we can create with our tools. It will become immediately responsive to an audience’s needs in a way that human art can’t. What do you want to see? AI will make it for exactly your tastes, or to maybe confront your tastes and expand your mind, if that’s what you’d like. It will virtualize the artistic consciousnesses of Picasso, Goya, Michelangelo, and create new artists with new sensibilities, along with thousands of years of their works, more than a person could hope to view in a lifetime. Pop culture will be cheaper than ever, and have an audience of one - that new x rated final season of Friends you had a passing thought about is waiting for you to watch when you get home from work. Do you want 100 seasons of it? No problem. The whole notion of authorship is radically reformed and dies, drowned in an unfathomable abyss of AI creations. Human creativity becomes like human chess. People still busy themselves with it for fun, knowing full well that it’s anachronistic and inferior in every way.

          Donno, just a thought I have sometimes.

          • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So yeah, you like AI because that way you won’t have to commission and pay real artists and you also don’t mind artists losing their jobs and being dehumanized and having to slave in factories. Glad one of you finally said it.

              • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You didn’t say that explicitly, but that’s the implication of the world you’re imagining. You’re literally describing the death of all forms of creative industry–human musicians, human writers, human actors–all replaced with AI. You’re describing the death of shared creative experiences; with an audience of one, nobody commiserates together over a movie they watched, or a book series they discovered, or talks about the new season of a favorite TV show together. You’re describing the death of any form of subversive thought; with all media produced by AI, guard rails on creativity are trivial to introduce, gently redirecting, or outright prohibiting subject matter that is deemed inappropriate (and if you think I’m wrong, just imagine the world you’re describing in modern day China–do you seriously think they would allow AI to proliferate that allowed you to create a movie about Tianenmen Square?).

                The world you’re describing sounds like a plastic, lifeless, lonely hellhole. It’s the kind of world sci-fi authors would use as a dystopian background.

                • voluble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, and I think the kinds of things that you mention might come to pass. But for the record I didn’t say that I thought it was good. It’s just a direction I think these things could go. There’s no putting this genie back in the bottle. The view that AI will remain in the background, or merely solve problems that we already have solutions for, or cannot possibly bear on the character and influence of human creativity, I think underestimates the possibilities for change that this still very young technology could bring. That’s all I’m saying, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

                  • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Except production companies have just said they’d like to pay an actor for a day to copy their likelihood and then use those images to make movies without paying actors ever again. A lot of people are already prompting whole novels written by AI and selling them. This shit is ALREADY dystopic as shit. And it’s already here. No need to “give it a chance”, it straight up has to be murdered and be made illegal. It needs to flop as hard as NFTs did.

                • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You absolutely get it. Like, right now all art is owned by corporations and shit is already bad as it is, if it’s made by machines that means the death of any kind of shred of human thought and empathy. It disgusts me to my core. It’s the goddamn world from Matrix, except some people are even INVITING IT IN. Like, I’d rather get a frontal lobotomy than see “art” made by AI.

              • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You said that actually. In many more words, but the point of what you said is exactly that. If you want an AI to make the show you want and if all of us thought the way you’re thinking, what do you think writers, directors, actors etc would do?

                Also, you’re not considering the fact that art is not made for the public. Art is self-expression. The fact that we like movies others have made is that something about them resonates with us, but the reason those movies were made is not that. And only humans can do self-expression. A machine has nothing to say, a machine feels nothing, a machine is artistically nothing. You’re standing up for the “artistic” equivalent of Matrix soup as replacement for real food cooked by real people.

                • voluble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not ‘standing up’ for anything in particular and I don’t mean to express anything here as an outcome that I want, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering where this all goes.

                  I understand that you really dislike AI, and feel that what AI makes and what humans make will always and forever be categorically different in some important way. I can see where you’re coming from and a fruitful debate could be had there I think. I’m less sure than you are that AI can be tamed or bottled or destroyed. I think it’s something that is here to stay and will continue to develop whether we like the outcomes or not. As open source AI improves and gets into the hands of the average person, I don’t see how it’s possible to put effective limits on this technology. Geriatric politicians won’t do it, this is painfully obvious. Complaining (or advocating, which you could note I have not done here) in a small corner of an obscure comment thread on an obscure platform won’t make a difference either.

                  I get the sense that you believe there is a moral responsibility for everybody commenting in an online forum to call for the complete destruction of AI, and anything short of that is somehow morally wrong. I don’t understand that view at all. We’re musing into the void here and it has absolutely no effect on what will actually occur in the AI space. I’m open to changing my mind if you have a case to make about there being some moral responsibility to wave the flag that you want to wave, on an online forum, and that wondering aloud is somehow impermissible.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It only becomes a problem if it is “good enough” to replace working artists. Companies have shown time and time again that they would be willing to cut corners for cheaper production costs. Hollywood would happily sell us AI generated stuff if we were willing to buy it. So consumers would really need to care and push back hard against AI art for artists to remain employed. I don’t see it happening.