Ya. These are the same people that continually try to take down Team Four Star for their satirization of DBZ because it made is actually better in many ways, from a country that has some of the worst satire and free use laws in the world.
Creators of copyrighted material in Japan can literally sue someone from making fun of their material.
Pardon me if I don’t take their crocodile tears seriously.
i hate how brainwashed westerners are. will go on a diatribe about the importance of free speech and then rabidly defend copyright as if it isn’t directly contrary to the idea of freedom of information, all in the same breath.
inb4 that’s a description of every reply to this comment.
Pretty sure you don’t understand the difference between copywrite and freedom of speech. But that’s ok.
“You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can’t share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn’t want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do.”
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn’t some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you’re right it course the company is hording it.
Yep! I’m okay with that, intellectual property is theft, and is even more so when copying is nothing but flipping a 0 into a 1. Everyone online has the right to “steal” the words on the screen I “made”.
Copyright is theft of the public. The companies owning your favorite media isn’t going to fuck you, let alone give you anything but the privilege to charge you for the licence to borrow media until its inconvenient to them.
Right. So you also don’t understand what copyright is. Jesus. What is with you people.
“Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive control over its use and distribution for a limited time. This includes the rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and adapt the work. It protects literary, artistic, musical, and other creative works, preventing unauthorized use.”
I don’t understand what’s so confusing about this.
I don’t understand what’s so confusing about wanting to make art of anything you want, including based off of Disney or whatever you want.
Sorry that me pirating something doesn’t hurt their bottom dollar but they lobby to arrest people like it does.
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
Yes. Thank you. You definitely don’t not only understand the difference between copyright and the freedom of speech you also fail to grasp simple concepts like freedom, commodity, and owned.
Not only that you invented a definition of your own to suit your needs to further your argument which you don’t even understand in its most fundamental state.
So you can be simply dismissed without any further adu.
Next you’re going to tell me using someones artstyle to depict someone getting deported is not appropriate for the white house twitter
While I agree that it’s not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
There’d be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
Yeah lemme go to my local fentanyl shop. Because she trafficked fentanyl.
And? Plenty of countries where that’s not an issue, or at worse she’d get either a fine or medical counseling on addiction for a couple days https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-have-decriminalized-drugs.html
Which of those countries have decriminalized Fentanyl? I bet it’s none of them.
Weed is fine, obviously.
What part of literally all drugs did you not get from the list at the bottom mentioning places like Portugal and Croatia?
Well shit, I stand corrected!
Lol forgot they call weed drug
forgot they call weed drug
Clearly you didn’t, because weed is completely unrelated to this story. You saw the word ‘drug’ and assumed it must mean ‘marijuana’.Edit: You know what, this response was pretty dickish. Sorry. Ignore the above.
Thanks appreciate your edit, i was speaking in general that they can call someone selling weed as drug dealer and kick them out of the country. So the word drug dealer in the US by itself doesn’t mean the person is gang member or horrible person.
Regardless thanks again for the edit! Have a good day…
You got a link for that? I’m not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs
No, Ozturk is suspected for supporting Hammas - maybe he’s selling Fentanyl for Hammas? 😂 But if that’s true, out she goes. If it’s not, I hope she can sue their asses for defamation and whatever else can stick.
My bad, the illustration was supposed to be of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, who has been accused of trafficking fentanyl. On the one hand, it seems encouraging that they had to find someone who could more credibly be presented as criminal – hopefully an indication that their claims about the pro-Palestinian students and Argentinians with tattoos they’ve disappeared were not deemed credible enough by the general public.
Still, we only have the allegation of this administration against this person, so it’s quite possible she’s entirely innocent. It’s not like they give a fuck about actual crimes or making our country safer. They just want to be seen as badasses.
Still less criminal than the admistration so very shaky ground for this claim.
All current drug problens themselves were created by republicans who they invented the drug war in the 70s intentionally to curtail free speech of Vietnam war protesters.
The drug over criminalization created the environement that directly leads to fentanyl being an optimal border crossing narcotic.
Drug dealers are more respectable right now than all administration members combined, even the “illegal” ones.
All very dubious for the most powerful country in the world, which rapes the entire planet for mineral ressources to call any human “illegal”.
I speak for all humans when I say, this planet would be a lot better without the memetic infections known as America, China, Europe, India, Russia.
Maybe if they all had a nuclear fireworks party the survivors would have the opportunity to learn not to build those monstrous egregores.
Still less criminal than the admistration so very shaky ground for this claim.
Sure - I won’t disagree there 😂
All current drug problens themselves were created by republicans who they invented the drug war in the 70s intentionally to curtail free speech of Vietnam war protesters.
It always comes down to the USA having their little 2-party system. They seriously need to fix that, and break up both Dems and Reps.
The First Past The Post creates TwoParty OneSystem-ism with mathematical certainty. It is winner-takes-all logic which concentrates power and makes it manageable, purchaseable
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I’m aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Yes, only one thing can be an “insult to life”. GOOD point.
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people’s work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
Bigoted against a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
If you throw AI at your hand draw 20 frames per second you are going to get the smoothest film ever and that’s just a stupid example. You can use AI for a thousand things already from the story boards to your final work.
a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
This type of comparison makes no sense: with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t. You just ask the mighty machine what you want and it’ll spit processed garbage heavily approximating what you asked for. You could try fixing the output yourself, but at that point it’s no longer just AI, it becomes a mix of digital art and AI “art” with all the other problems the latter carries with it such as copyright, constant output reprocessing and especially energy consumption as making one crappy looking output takes way too much power for it to be viable in the long term.
with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn’t?
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the “romantic” part is essential because that’s what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn’t just about making something “pretty”, that’s something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don’t understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn’t carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there’s no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
Why not both?
Do you know the context of the quote?
Tell me you’ve never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you’ve never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message. If AI were personified in one of their movies, it’d be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It’d be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It’s just so contrary to the message they put out.
Where’s the “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message in Kiki’s Delivery Service?
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn’t say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A “theme” or “motif”, if you will.
Miyazaki is my favorite angry old man.
Life is hard when you dreamed of being a chèf but got popular with animation.
Yeah it sucks for him to have ended up creating works beloved by hundreds of millions and touched and changed lives
he could have made some steaks and shit but oh well
Relatable. I’ll never achieve my dreams either.
Unfathomably based
I thought it was John dunsworth
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard. The future looks more and more bleak.
Say what you will about the soulessnes of AI imagery (I find it very dissapointing), but this new technology is going to take our jobs argument is incredibly tired boomer-speak that shows a lack of understanding of history and a lack of imagination.
As a tool, it should be highly useful to artists to help them create things. However, the fact that these algorithms (I don’t care to call them AI because they aren’t) are stealing people’s work and then shitting out mediocre garbage and the people in the creative industry who tend to finance such things start thinking that “these machines can just do what an artist can so why pay for an artist” is the problem.
I’ve never read or enjoyed any AI works so far, tbh.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard.
I would say that’s a tangential problem. Because, you know, in theory…
But the deeper problem is ultimately in expertise as a learned skill developed over time and through practice. If you’re de-skilling work, you’re dismantling the tools by which we train the next generation of artists and production crews. If we were just replacing humans with machines for some route manual labor (like Pixar replaced Disney’s old hand drawn animations with a newer CGI look), the result would be a new style and perhaps less tendentious from route reproductions.
But we’re gutting the whole process of development which means you’re losing the pool of skilled professionals who know how to create CGI (or even flip-book style 60s animation) from first principles. That means sacrificing whole fields of specialized expertise for… what? This?
Reminds me of how millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks. The quality of products have decreased too so they break quicker which gives people incentive to buy a new one instead of fixing.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
We are not only losing skills and tactile learning and understanding, we are also rapidly torpedoing out planet into a massive trash heap. Which is a bit of a duh, I know, but still.
I for one have noticed the insane decline in the quality of clothes after covid. It is shockingly shitty now and tears faster than ever. Shirts and leggings I bought ten years ago still hold up while similar shirts and leggings from a few years ago already tear or unravel. It is shocking. I guess this is what will eventually happen to art too.
millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks
Planned Obselecence means a lot of modern consumer goods are deliberately designed to be difficult to repair.
More cheap plastic used for buckles and clasps. More glue used in place of screws or latches. More electronics soddered or otherwise made irreplaceable/inaccessible to an amateur. Shoes, in particular, leap to mind. Shoe repair used to be a standard dry cleaning service. It’s practically extinct today. Very few good ways to repair a modem sneaker.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
There’s a time cost to repair and maintenance that’s often frustrating. I don’t blame folks for opting towards convenience. But I feel horrible every time I take out the trash, knowing how much plastic waste I accrue every month.
That will only happen if a society completely is reorganized to get rid of money or if they introduce universal basic income (at a rate that actually allows people to live).
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Or, more broadly, when individuals are recognized as valued participants in the community rather than obsolete expenses to try and scratch off the books.
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Not under current business and political leadership, no. But with a strong union movement leading a next generation of working class people… maybe.
What about the transition.
Because this will take time to happen, and the thing about not eating because you have literally no money, is it’s a rather immediate concern. You can’t just wait a decade or so for everyone to sort it out.
“A real labor of love”
Christ. It’s like people cosplaying as real artists.
I think it’s intentional. Where you had to think to do something, you’d inevitably learn to think. Where you had to put soul and wisdom and aesthetic feeling into your work, you’d inevitably touch those things for other parts of your life.
There are people higher in the society, who think lower castes shouldn’t have that and will be fine with knowledge and expertise just sufficient to do their jobs.
They wouldn’t be so hellbent on this particular technology, if they didn’t see how relatively recent progress changed that curve of expertise for radio, electric engineering, all engineering, computer science, automobiles, home appliances, and what not. So they see this consistently works for 25+ years.
So they work to deprive us of practice that allows to do more in all those directions. There’s a moat that could as well be an abyss between what we know and what we’d need to know to make relevant things. That moat wasn’t there 25 years ago. The path from a novice computer user to someone knowing all DOS interrupts and what DMA and IRQ are was less than the path from a novice computer user today to making a simple GUI application.
(I’ve got executive dysfunction, so feel these things more, but I’m certain they are true.)
I don’t know about you, but I don’t absolutely require job for my life. I do require nutrients and shelter though…
Uh huh, so your going to grow and hunt your own nutrients then I guess? Build your own shelter?
I guess you could do all that if you had the money to buy the required land for it, but then again if you had that kind of money you didn’t need a job in the first place.
Do you really not see the difference between food/shelter, things that you WILL die without, and employment?
The only reason you need the latter for the former (and I mean, no you don’t but whatever) is because of how society is set up.
Your body doesn’t shut down if you don’t clock in to your job for X days.
Zoom out man. They were being sardonic.
All these job people are just barking up the wrong tree. Oh no my 9-5 is gone instead of oh wow now we collectively have less work load and should focus on resource redistribution.
Hopefully Soylent Green comes fast to save us.
What if it allows other creative people to create newer works rather than these few people. Could spell a new Renaissance of creativity that didn’t exist before. Lots of people have great stories to tell but lacked artistic ability or resources.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
Eh? Of course you could.
You think you could?
I think the minute it gets popular the lawyers start getting paid
Not an AI problem though. Perhaps AI will help some people understand that there are some big ass problems in our society.
With big asses being one of them. Obesity and it’s complications are getting out of control. I’m in favor of free glp-1 clinics and then free antidote clinics for whatever terrible blight the free glp-1 clinics unleash upon us in 5-10 years.
Time for TheLuigiAI.
Suh-NAP!
So was it trained on his work without his approval?
That should be the headline. Assuming it was done without consent, which lets face it, it most likely was.
The way Altman whines about how much he should be allowed to steal people’s work to feed his bottom line, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
Hopefully. It makes cool pictures.
I said without, I wouldn’t believe they got his approval…
Shouldn’t’t need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn’t a public resource.
I don’t care about copyrights. I care about content.
Every paid artist could disappear. Content will still be created. Probably better content and products then anything created under any copyright and IP as is now.
Well, that’s one take I guess… Not a good one, but one none the less…
If we didn’t have copyright then people wouldn’t be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn’t be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I’m writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict.
Seems this is legal now. Keep this in mind, when the next video game decompilation project comes along because that’s also machine-generated material based on copyrighted released media. That must be equally as legal now.
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don’t owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don’t like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can’t have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
Edit: yes yes. I know y’all don’t like these facts and yet they’re undisputed.
Who’s watching marvel movies for free, legally? Who’s listening to RHCP’s entire discography for free, legally?
Not the people training AI, they’ve been caught pirating their data multiple times.
No one is. That’s exactly the point.
Llms aren’t recreating copyrighted works. They’re drawing inspiration if you will. No copyright is being infringed.
And how is an LLM trained to “draw inspiration” from an author without reading their books?
That’s exactly what it is. But it’s not replicating the book to sell that same book to generate profit the author of the book won’t get.
It’s using the information in the book to generate its own data.
Are you aware of how llms work?
Ok, so if the LLM was trained by reading the books, then the LLM creators should have to buy a copy of the books, right?
Because right now the creators are pirating the books to feed into the machine.
The funny thing is OpenAI’s image generator didn’t really do a good job with making a Ghibli stylized version of Altman.
That being said, there will be a downstream impact on media quality if there is no novel approach to balancing creative work and AI slop generators. Don’t think there is a simple answer.
Replacing amazing creative humans with bland AI generated content is not a good use of AI.
Ironic since the decrease of human made work (art or software) will decrease the quality or diversity of generative AI itself
Which the shareholders couldn’t freaking care less. They only need to get super rich in their lifetime.
In theory they get super rich, but in practice the early adopters of AI seem to be hemoraging money as a result of it. It doesn’t actually make the bare minimun content so they end up hiring humans to fix their bullshit and the end product is worse than just using humans.
Artist will no longer exist as a species
deleted by creator
Mostly true, but…
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn’t meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn’t be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can’t think of them right now.
And despite all of its other problems, it’s still not even profitable.
It’s a good use for me. I work with children and the things I’ve “created” have been significantly better thanks to mid-journey.
Before that it was just generic clip art, now I can make really beautifully themed stuff that was both out of my skill range and price range.
The artists, would never get money from me since I’m not rich enough to afford it but the children benefit.
So we’re teaching the children that only high level art is worthwhile and they shouldn’t even try to make at themselves because they suck at it and you can just generate it. Cool.
Well I don’t teach art so… and they don’t even know
How do you define better? More photrealistic? I’d wager kids could learn as much if not more from your own hand-drawn chicken scratch that has a greater emphasis and less distractions on the points you want to convey. They might relate to the lack of conventional quality that they themselves aren’t able to achieve as well. There is an incredible vapidness to AI art. Also it absolutely blows at trying to make anything diagrammatic for teaching. I’ve tried to use it to convey scientic topics that I’d normally use grant funds (back in the day when there were grants) to hire artists to do, and it was an exercise in purified frustration.
While AI is boosting productivity and is amazing, it also appeals to our worst inner instincts of giving in to authority and outsourcing and taking credit for others’ work.
Edit: I didn’t think this needs to be spelled out but here we go…
AI productivity increase: it can help automate mundane, repetitive tasks that require little skill, but lot of time. It can help proofread texts and point out issues in your writing, or help reduce the reading level needed for your text.
AI making people give in to authority: people thinking the “AI” knows better and surrender their critical thinking to AI suggestions when it’s giving bad advice, makes false calculations et.
People outsourcing to AI: not acquiring the drawing skills, or writing skills and letting AI hallucinate into your data/writing.
Taking credit for other’s work: I think it’s trivial and AI generated “art” is the prime example, but can extend to scientific writing, etc.
Initially I thought Asimov was so naive about AI/Robots and their risks, but he was pretty much spot on. It’s not the tech it’s the humans using it that is the problem.
Nah AI is just garbo in general. Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
Nah. Humans are “garbo” in general.
See this is the (well, one major) problem with copyright.
Imaginary property for me (“AI” goons), not for thee (actual artists).
