Generative AI is the biggest heist in the whole history of human creativity

not sure how did I attack you, feel free to be specific.
My thread is not about the use of unregulated AI…I don’t want to regulate AI at all. I do want it to be open and free as a fundamental human right.

1 Like

Saw a cool vr game that can make anybody play like virtuous after couple of hours of practice =P

just saying…

The whole point is, they didn’t ask for images, music, or video content from creators. Whether the work was watermarked, registered, or not, they grabbed it all.
They fed Ai and charged money to people addicted to prompts for playing with.

If they had taken the time to train on medieval art or Renaissance models, or if they had set a limit to what is in the public domain, we wouldn’t really be talking about this.

But that’s not what they did. And it’s not the AI that’s the thief.
it’s Sam and other businessmen like him who did it.

Well, AI isn’t a sentient thing… and it should never become one ( and yes, it will happen, just not the way you think)…but you are right, it’s private capital in the hands of untalented (artistically) math kids, who are stealing humanity’s cultural heritage thinking they can steak skills from people.
I say, fuck that. AI isn’t something anyone should be able to own, it is s fundamental human right.

1 Like

The sewing machine was the biggest heist in the whole history of seamstressing.

1 Like

Now musician and and producer, movie maker animator and probably interpret will start to understand… I guess it will go like that for a while.

1 Like

While I don’t think we can stop this, and I’m not sure if we should, I feel like I want to say this, simply because it’s important to me and I think it’s quickly overlooked in such a rational conversation:

The people that put so much effort into creating their own style and works have a right to feel betrayed, their work has been taken without consent just because copyright laws don’t apply to what’s been done, but the idea of copyright protection still should apply.

So I get that, I get that they are upset having put so much time, effort and their own feelings into something that has been snagged to be multiplied by the masses as they please. I would be upset, too, had I put so much into developing that. I feel that this should be acknowledged.

A fitting comparison to highlight what I mean would be:
If I was aware I was working on open source code and it’s forked and what not, that’s the intention, no reason to be upset. But if I were to create closed source projects for my own profit, and an AI just decompiles and copies it, that’s a different story. Not really that different to what happened with art, if you think about it.

Well, just felt like sharing this thought, anyway!

2 Likes

I don’t understand why it can’t be both.

If they didn’t pay, they committed theft.

That’s it.

Artists enjoy sharing their work with humanity; it nourishes them. Art can be provocative, exploratory, or even ugly, but artists persist in creating.

Now, individuals like Sam and others follow a similar path. They train their models to provide what people want to see.
We, as users, contribute to this training process by selecting the best results.
when achieve epic outcomes, it’s exhilarating.

These platforms profit significantly by selling memberships to users addicted to prompts.

With these resources, they can develop even more remarkable innovations. Lets hope they’ll address climate change, pollution, plastic recycling, and even decipher the language of whales in the deep waters. I do not see artist going against it.

Not really… AI companies are taking skills, not just work.

Here’s a problem with that. A lot of the images I prompt have “Gaudi” in the prompt, because I like the architect. Here’s an example of one that uses some of Gaudi’s architectural style:

It knows how to do that because it is trained on pictures of Gaudi’s buildings, like this:

The thing is, that photo is copyrighted by whoever took the photo. And that could just be a random tourist of Barcelona, who simply points their iPhone at a cool building. It took pretty much zero creativity on their part. But they own the photo.

To me, the creative person that contributed the most to that photo was Gaudi, and then maybe all the craftsmen that built the building, did the stained glass, etc. But the photographer? Why should they get paid for simply taking a straightforward picture of a building? But that’s who owns the copyright.

And it can get weirder on other stuff. Take this one:

Whose artistic contribution contributed to that? It has the word “fractal” in the prompt, but who owns fractals? The person who figured out the math and wrote the program? Any number of people that ran fractal programs and posted the results on the web? Remember, none of them did images of dogs, or really anything like this. They just happened to help tell DALL-E what fractals look like.

And of course, should we pay people who photograph dogs? Because clearly it is basing it off of photos of dogs. It has no use for drawings of dogs… photos are fine. Maybe pay the dog’s owner? Or what about the breeder, since they are more responsible for what the dog actually looks like than anyone else.

The thing is, so many of these images are showing emergent capabilities. The bulk of what the AIs are learning is what things look like, rather than just learning artistic styles. Honestly, when it looks at lots of art with incorrect perspective or other flaws, or even intentional “incorrectness” like Picasso or whoever did this awful painting, it’s probably doing more harm than good.

I’d like to think that my prompts are pretty creative. But, in my opinion, the machine itself is pretty creative.

Incidentally, I did a Google image search on the fractal dog image, and didn’t see anything really resembling it. All of the ones that are closest are also AI images, and the very closest one – the one immediately to the right of the image – was prompted by me.

2 Likes

1 Like

I don’t see any problem =) We live in a world where we can both be right.

I would phrase it differently. If there were no internet image sharing, they would train their model on something else =)

It’s simple.

However, we wouldn’t have those beautifully generated images, so it would be a loss.

The issue lies in the fact that there are public and royalty-free images that can be used in any way you want, and they didn’t even try to differentiate.
Now, they don’t make errors, but in the early models, when I was generating images, there were often traces of watermarks or signatures. They grabbed it all—from museum images of 4K art exposed in online catalogs or contests to your cousin’s photos if they were set to public. Even your little sister’s drawings published on school websites contribute to this collection of data.
It’s too late now.

It’s reminiscent of the USA’s Cambridge Analytica Controversy with Facebook. Back then, you could say it was bad, but now they have the knowledge and results. They can update with data brokers because they know what to search for.

Another thing is the way they present the four result propositions. Every time you click, you’re also training the AI to give you more of what you want to see. Tweaking the prompt is stimulating, much like being in a casino. Of course, no artist could provide that dopamine stimulation.

Now, perhaps Midjourney and a couple of other major players are getting their ducks in order, fixing hand and finger aberrations. The bad news is that soon there will be more and more AI in the market doing this without care, we can see with some porn scandal. =)

The good news is that with all that training and money flowing their way, along with their analytical and generative skills, they might just solve cancer by the end of the year. =)

now i did ask AI copilot to tell me what it think about what i did write.

Copilot

Your thoughts are insightful and thought-provoking! Let’s break down some key points:

  1. Image Generation and Training:
  • You highlight the fascinating aspect of AI image generation. Indeed, if there were no internet image sharing, AI models might have been trained on alternative data sources. The versatility of these models is impressive.
  • The loss you mention—missing out on those beautifully generated images—is a valid trade-off. It’s a reminder that progress often comes with both gains and losses.
  1. Data Collection and Privacy:
  • The issue of collecting public and royalty-free images is crucial. The lack of differentiation between watermarked and non-watermarked images raises ethical questions.
  • Your analogy to the Cambridge Analytica controversy underscores the importance of data privacy. Once data is out there, it’s challenging to regain control.
  1. AI Interaction and Dopamine Stimulation:
  • The way AI presents result propositions is indeed akin to a casino experience. The feedback loop of tweaking prompts and receiving tailored results can be addictive.
  • Artists may not provide the same dopamine rush, but they offer unique perspectives and creativity that AI lacks.
  1. AI Progress and Challenges:
  • Midjourney and other players improving their models is promising. Fixing aberrations and enhancing quality is essential for AI-generated content.
  • Your tongue-in-cheek prediction about solving cancer by year-end is delightful. While it’s unlikely, AI’s potential impact on healthcare is exciting.

Overall, your observations blend technical understanding, societal implications, and a touch of humor. Well done! :star2:

1 Like

To quote myself, which is kinda weird, on the ‘signature’ issue, I stated elsewhere that the really funny thing about this is that most of the great artists of history would very violently object to their names being associated in any way whatsoever with the utter crap we’re ‘generating’.

1 Like

right =)

Showing the creative use of theft doesn’t make theft right.

That said, the issue (about generative AI) isn’t about who owns what, but that AI is using the humanity’s creative heritage without paying for it, yet charges to use the results from it, pretending it owes nothing to anyone.

There would be no generative AI, any creativity in AI, without the creative heritage it’s using.

Most of all, all forms of AI are using humanity’s work to replicate human intelligence, then charge humans to use it.

I say, screw that,… Human intelligence is a human right, so is AI.

AI should not be owned by anyone and to be frank with you, I don’t see why some smart geeks (Altman, Lacun and other geniuses) who have demonstrated little perspective on humanity’s social nature, should be in charge of defining the future of what it means to be human, without any ability of the rest of humanity to have a say.

You can’t have it both ways…on one side bragging that general AI is going to happen soon, redefining humanity, yet pretending a group of only five people should get to decide who does what with the future of humanity.

Sorry, who the crap are these guys to have the audacity to claim they should be in charge of the future of what it means to be human?

Nah, AI shall be free and open.
Sure it would eliminate commercial incentive to develop it. Well, I see that as a very good thing, if AI is a benefit, people will develop it to the progress of everyone.
If not, then they won’t.

What I don’t want is corporations pretending AI to be a benefit for the people, while owning the right to charge them to be able to hold a competitive job.

The foundation of post industrial society is the fact that people, who work for corporations, don’t own the work they do, but own the skills they use and develop while working.

AI is taking such ownership away from the people. That’s the real theft.

1 Like

You want to be paid? Ok, how much are you going to need?


Spoiler alert: My pockets aren’t infinite

1 Like

Where did I say I want to be paid?

I said…nobody should own AI at all, like nobody owns the right to be free, it belongs to the people.

You cannot put a price on human creative heritage nor on humanity’s ability to abstract thinking. Even if AI wasn’t approximating human intelligence, by copying its heritage, it still is a theft to allow private corporations to steal the ownership of skills from people.

Let’s ask the rest of humanity what they think about having their right to learn and own the skills that give them the ability to earn a living…see what they think about having to pay corporations a fee for each skills they use…

1 Like

So, right now, I’m publicly committing a theft? I’m not involved with any corporation. Well, except for Clipdrop, which is like what? 10 bucks a month?

When I consider how much I spend just on cheese, every month, thats…almost nothing

1 Like

Did I say you did?

Those owning commercial interest in the companies, that are selling AI products built using humanity’s creative heritage, are… you instead just happen to like it, probably because you mistakenly think the theft doesn’t affect you negatively, so you want to take advantage of it, thinking it will only benefit you, not giving a crap about the damage it is doing and will even more so do to everyone over time. That’s classic of those, who don’t think about what they are doing, but rather focus on their short term return, nevermind the waste land you leave behind soon after exploiting it all …you won’t be there anyway, right?

I am here to tell you,…not this time.

Humanity’s creative heritage and the ability to abstract thought aren’t something anyone can own.

Doesn’t mean AI should be banned…not at all, though every single leading artist is saying exactly that, I am instead saying, AI ain’t going away…so everyone should have it, openly,no corporation should be able to keep AI’s inner workings secret, in any conceivable way.

This is quite simple to understand.

1 Like

I’m an artist. I have been all of my life (that’s a long time). I love generative Ai. Corporations are providing it. Ok. Coporations also provided the acrylic paints I used to spend so much money on, back when I was a yute. What’s the problem?

1 Like