• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lemmy is full of people that have never created anything of value frothing at the mouth because they aren’t entitled other people’s creations. I wonder how long it would take them to change their tune if they actually created something worthwhile but got none of the recognition for it if IP laws didn’t exist.

    • HexesofVexes
      link
      51 year ago

      Published academic (mathematics) here - I suspect my contributions have some value ;)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Or, it could be that for once we got access to the same powerful tools the capitalists got access to, and we’re annoyed that the capitalists have been successful at convincing people the tech is evil so that the poors dont use it. (Morals have never stopped corporations from doing anything, so tech being “Evil” only ever stops the general public from using it)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Only the capitalists have access to creating stuff? You do know you can just put in the practice and get good right?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh yeah sure. Lemme just dedicate another 5-10 years of my life to mastering a skill when I only have a few hours free a week to unwind after spending all my energy working full time.

          Edit: The funniest thing about this take is that the people who spout it think they are defending artists without realising that they are massively devaluing all the time effort and skill artists have put into their craft with the suggestion that basically any working class adult could do what they do if they wanted to

          Edit 2: I know its incredibly hard to believe, but some of us just want access to creative freedom, and dont particularly care about the skill that gives us said freedom. Even if I had the pen and paper skills to make my art from scratch, I’d STILL be using Stable Diffusion at this point as it massively speeds up the process, I’d just be doing heavier editing of the results than I already do, and would probably train a LORA off of my own art

          Edit: 3 Lmao entitled artists are BIG MAD. Techs not going away, and you’re burning out the empathy of those who could be convinced to use more ethical options as they arise. Instead you want to kill the tech entirely, and so the new generation of artists that use these new tools will ignore your input entirely. Your labour is being exploited, welcome to capitalism. You want change? Fix the systemic issues. You want sympathy? Stop being assholes. AI Generators can be run on personal computers now with no connection to the internet, Pandora’s Box is opened and cannot be closed again. Live with it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            Why do you feel you’re owed the work of people who have spent those years without compensating them or even asking for that matter? You do realise that is unsustainable right?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Because I disagree on whether or not it is theft. I watch the program generate the images from blots and then add more details. The images are made from scratch with techniques learned from the things it trained on. Its not a 1-1 comparison to how a human learns, but its closer than anything before it has been. Most artists have traced or done other taboo forms of learning in the process of acquiring their skills before they have the skillset to charge money for their work, and they CERTAINLY have benefited from thousands of years of art history and culture. Its not as black and white as artists want to make it out to be, its not squeeky fucking clean either, as more ethical options arise, I will use those. But this tech is amazing and has the potential to dramatically change the art scene for the better once those with skills start adopting it more. It will allow more artists to break free from corporate sponsors, to take on bigger solo projects than they were able to before. At the end of the day, its Capitalism stealing work from artists, not the machine. This whole debacle has reminded me that what stopped me from entering the arts as a child was the elitism.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                At the end of the day, its Capitalism stealing work from artists, not the machine.

                Fully agree on this… but since we live in a capitalist system and until we don’t anymore, it’s still wrong.

                The images are made from scratch with techniques learned from the things it trained on.

                With no input (in the almost totality of cases) from the artist. None of the artists agreed to have their work being used to train the machine and if their work is being used for that they deserve to be compensated.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -11 year ago

                  The fact that you are talking to me right now means you are using a computer chip in some way, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to participate in Capatalist society and live an ethicly clean life. We all have different lines on which ways we’ll opt out in order to sleep better at night. At the end of the day, fair compensation is an impossible task considering its not 10’s of artists that got used, its quite literally all of the available images on the internet, Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of artists work, living and dead. Thats like asking a human artist to create their art in a vacuum, to forget all of the artists that inspire them, forget their culture, forget their muses that they dont even know inspired them. Even if you could assign a $ value and somehow contact that many people, their fair value would be less than a penny. For the core tech? Low numbers of art wouldnt work, the machines would need examples innumerable in order to start learning what the hell an apple is in 70 different art styles. I’ve stopped using artists styles as prompts, because yeah, there there is a specific artist I am grabbing from, and I’m not doing it with their permission, and so I stopped.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 year ago

                    You can’t just use Capitalism to wash your hands of every amoral action. I mean… clearly you can, but you shouldn’t. The fact that fair compensation is impossible is literally the reason why ai is getting (rightfully) shit on by so many people. The fact that huge vc funded corporations went “yeah we needed a lot of data, but it would have cost us way too much to get it ethically so we just swiped it” is disgusting and the reason ai should be shut down. It’s so weird to me that so many anticapitalists have been enthralled by ai when they are made by huge companies that are profiting from work they stole… literally the capitalist wet dream. How exactly is that fighting against Capitalism?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      FWIW I’ve been creating IP as a career for a long time. I still want what OP wants, a UBI instead.

      This is where people usually suggest that I start unilaterally sharing my work right now, ignoring the economic assumptions behind why a UBI would be necessary to replace IP.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I’m in your same position and fully agree. An UBI would be way better… but until that exists it’s not right that people make use of my work for their own profit.