So the whole AI movie thing is really moving along now…

simonnowis

@neum ... as Terrence McKenna said, we are beyond the age of novelty ... and into the age of choice

the issues i see in the NWO is OWNership ...

AudioGus

@oldsynthguy said:

@NeuM said:
That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

‘Other artists’? Are AI systems people now?

You’re wrong anyway. Until AI ‘artists’ come up with something that is actually ‘new’, they’re simply regurgitating the same stuff they’ve scraped in a slightly different way, albeit with a few extra digits.

Of course ‘human’ artists and musicians acknowledge and are inspired by their contemporaries and music from the past, but if there wasn’t that spark of unique creativity from innovative individuals, we’d still be banging rocks together, wailing, and spraying hand-prints on cave walls.

Where’s the ‘new’ AI art styles they’ve invented? ‘New’ AI music genre? With all this computing power and interest, where’s all the new stuff?

I would also like to see the ‘new’ human art styles that were invented over the past two or three years. ‘New’ human music genres?

wim

@espiegel123 said:
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.

^ This. (emphasis mine.)

What I don't like about the potential direction this is all going is that it may increasingly de-motivate people to create (and think) on their own. I don't really think that'll happen as creativity is part of the human spirit and I believe will always find ways to push through. Thinking and learning ... maybe not so much? We'll see.

JanKun

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes!!!

AudioGus

@wim said:

@espiegel123 said:
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.

^ This. (emphasis mine.)

What I don't like about the potential direction this is all going is that it may increasingly de-motivate people to create (and think) on their own. I don't really think that'll happen as creativity is part of the human spirit and I believe will always find ways to push through. Thinking and learning ... maybe not so much? We'll see.

A lot of people think the scale of things will just increase. Instead of 'someone read my screenplay' it may become 'someone watch my movie'.

JanKun

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

AudioGus

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes!!!

Sorry, what are you replying to? Did I make an argument for something?

JanKun

@AudioGus said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes!!!

Sorry, what are you replying to? Did I make an argument for something?

Sorry I mistakenly answered to your comment but it was aimed at the previous one.

NeuM

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

simonnowis

@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

AudioGus

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

Yah I wish I could be outraged but the best I have is a wry "Well played, machine... well played..."

Krupa

@wim said:

@espiegel123 said:
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.

^ This. (emphasis mine.)

What I don't like about the potential direction this is all going is that it may increasingly de-motivate people to create (and think) on their own. I don't really think that'll happen as creativity is part of the human spirit and I believe will always find ways to push through. Thinking and learning ... maybe not so much? We'll see.

This is probably the most important point, I think that possibly, if some sort of arrangement where the scraped data can be recompensed, then there’s a chance that the whole system will remain viable in the long term. Without fresh input it will eventually run out of steam, both in sheer output but mostly from an unwillingness of people to contribute to something that takes from them but gives them nothing back. Someone is stealing somewhere, maybe not the users, they’re maybe more receiving stolen goods? I have to say I’m not at the point where I’m at all comfortable thinking about passing it off as my own work, that’s just my moral compass though.

I’m also not sure if the regurgitation problem where AI source degenerates when fed back into the system has been solved yet?

I still think that incorporation of it into more controllable tools is the key though, prompting can only take so far the creativity and control needed for engaging outcomes. Without this, it’s going to be impossible to direct content in a deep or meaningful way, maybe if the large language models are incorporated into ‘actors’ then it could be interesting, a dialogue between director and actor, establishing motivation and subtext into their performance… still seems a long way off to me though.

NeuM

@simonnowis said:
@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

These systems create something in response to a request. they’re not acting on their own.

simonnowis

@neum is the request/prompt not an "idea"?

simonnowis

ultimately humanity needs to seriously consider the sharing of this planet's resources

we can only sit in one seat at a time

NeuM

@simonnowis said:
@neum is the request/prompt not an "idea"?

The request contains one or more ideas. The output is the expression of those ideas.

oldsynthguy

@AudioGus said:

@oldsynthguy said:

@NeuM said:
That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

‘Other artists’? Are AI systems people now?

You’re wrong anyway. Until AI ‘artists’ come up with something that is actually ‘new’, they’re simply regurgitating the same stuff they’ve scraped in a slightly different way, albeit with a few extra digits.

Of course ‘human’ artists and musicians acknowledge and are inspired by their contemporaries and music from the past, but if there wasn’t that spark of unique creativity from innovative individuals, we’d still be banging rocks together, wailing, and spraying hand-prints on cave walls.

Where’s the ‘new’ AI art styles they’ve invented? ‘New’ AI music genre? With all this computing power and interest, where’s all the new stuff?

I would also like to see the ‘new’ human art styles that were invented over the past two or three years. ‘New’ human music genres?

Maybe they’re all too busy typing in prompts to think of their own stuff. Maybe modern tools have made them/us lazy. Maybe we’re too busy making tools to do it for us instead.

Whataboutism and human apathy aside, if you look back at a recent decade, for example the 70’s, and the waves of new musical genres that appeared, it’s pretty staggering what a mere human brain and a guitar can come up with.

So considering the colossal amount of computing power and trillions of scraped existing material - why has AI not come up with any new art or music yet?

simonnowis

@NeuM said:

@simonnowis said:
@neum is the request/prompt not an "idea"?

The request contains one or more ideas. The output is the expression of those ideas.

and so where would you place your legal protections of OWNership in this situation?

NeuM

@oldsynthguy said:

@AudioGus said:

@oldsynthguy said:

@NeuM said:
That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

‘Other artists’? Are AI systems people now?

You’re wrong anyway. Until AI ‘artists’ come up with something that is actually ‘new’, they’re simply regurgitating the same stuff they’ve scraped in a slightly different way, albeit with a few extra digits.

Of course ‘human’ artists and musicians acknowledge and are inspired by their contemporaries and music from the past, but if there wasn’t that spark of unique creativity from innovative individuals, we’d still be banging rocks together, wailing, and spraying hand-prints on cave walls.

Where’s the ‘new’ AI art styles they’ve invented? ‘New’ AI music genre? With all this computing power and interest, where’s all the new stuff?

I would also like to see the ‘new’ human art styles that were invented over the past two or three years. ‘New’ human music genres?

Maybe they’re all too busy typing in prompts to think of their own stuff. Maybe modern tools have made them/us lazy. Maybe we’re too busy making tools to do it for us instead.

Whataboutism and human apathy aside, if you look back at a recent decade, for example the 70’s, and the waves of new musical genres that appeared, it’s pretty staggering what a mere human brain and a guitar can come up with.

So considering the colossal amount of computing power and trillions of scraped existing material - why has AI not come up with any new art or music yet?

Why must everything be X, Y or Z or it’s not “art”? This attitude runs contrary to the entire history of art. These things are tools. That’s all.

JanKun

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

We agree on that point of transmission imitation and inspiration. We differ on one major crucial point, you want to give the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans. I don't. Because they machines. But you probably don't consider artistic creation as craftsmanship. Mostly when I read your comment, it seems to be > @simonnowis said:

@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

You know as much as me, that those learning systems have stolen for a few years and in total impunity, Copyrighted material from real artists made of flesh and bones. The most flagrant exemple is how artists' voices have been stolen without their consent. That's a clear infringement of intellectual property.

NeuM

@simonnowis said:

@NeuM said:

@simonnowis said:
@neum is the request/prompt not an "idea"?

The request contains one or more ideas. The output is the expression of those ideas.

and so where would you place your legal protections of OWNership in this situation?

You need to familiarize yourself with both copyright laws and terms of use agreements for each service which offers generative art, music and video.

0tolerance4silence

These are the first baby steps… a bit awkward and lame but it is moving.
Isn’t it how we all started this journey? Copying simple things first then move on to more complex tasks… I think soon we will all be genuinely amazed by its output.

NeuM

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

We agree on that point of transmission imitation and inspiration. We differ on one major crucial point, you want to give the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans. I don't. Because they machines. But you probably don't consider artistic creation as craftsmanship. Mostly when I read your comment, it seems to be > @simonnowis said:

@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

You know as much as me, that those learning systems have stolen for a few years and in total impunity, Copyrighted material from real artists made of flesh and bones. The most flagrant exemple is how artists' voices have been stolen without their consent. That's a clear infringement of intellectual property.

This is simply untrue. Anything original (or even derivative) created by a person can be copyrighted. And all of these works can in turn become the subject of new or derivative works by others so long as they do not run afoul of copyright laws.

AudioGus

@oldsynthguy said:

@AudioGus said:

@oldsynthguy said:

@NeuM said:
That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

‘Other artists’? Are AI systems people now?

You’re wrong anyway. Until AI ‘artists’ come up with something that is actually ‘new’, they’re simply regurgitating the same stuff they’ve scraped in a slightly different way, albeit with a few extra digits.

Of course ‘human’ artists and musicians acknowledge and are inspired by their contemporaries and music from the past, but if there wasn’t that spark of unique creativity from innovative individuals, we’d still be banging rocks together, wailing, and spraying hand-prints on cave walls.

Where’s the ‘new’ AI art styles they’ve invented? ‘New’ AI music genre? With all this computing power and interest, where’s all the new stuff?

I would also like to see the ‘new’ human art styles that were invented over the past two or three years. ‘New’ human music genres?

Maybe they’re all too busy typing in prompts to think of their own stuff. Maybe modern tools have made them/us lazy. Maybe we’re too busy making tools to do it for us instead.

Whataboutism and human apathy aside, if you look back at a recent decade, for example the 70’s, and the waves of new musical genres that appeared, it’s pretty staggering what a mere human brain and a guitar can come up with.

So considering the colossal amount of computing power and trillions of scraped existing material - why has AI not come up with any new art or music yet?

I use these things all time, for me they are just coarse collage machines capable of outputting epic amounts of source material that can then be reprocessed. It takes a human to get results of any real value out of them.

JanKun

@Krupa said:

@wim said:

@espiegel123 said:
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.

^ This. (emphasis mine.)

What I don't like about the potential direction this is all going is that it may increasingly de-motivate people to create (and think) on their own. I don't really think that'll happen as creativity is part of the human spirit and I believe will always find ways to push through. Thinking and learning ... maybe not so much? We'll see.

This is probably the most important point, I think that possibly, if some sort of arrangement where the scraped data can be recompensed, then there’s a chance that the whole system will remain viable in the long term. Without fresh input it will eventually run out of steam, both in sheer output but mostly from an unwillingness of people to contribute to something that takes from them but gives them nothing back. Someone is stealing somewhere, maybe not the users, they’re maybe more receiving stolen goods? I have to say I’m not at the point where I’m at all comfortable thinking about passing it off as my own work, that’s just my moral compass though.

I’m also not sure if the regurgitation problem where AI source degenerates when fed back into the system has been solved yet?

I still think that incorporation of it into more controllable tools is the key though, prompting can only take so far the creativity and control needed for engaging outcomes. Without this, it’s going to be impossible to direct content in a deep or meaningful way, maybe if the large language models are incorporated into ‘actors’ then it could be interesting, a dialogue between director and actor, establishing motivation and subtext into their performance… still seems a long way off to me though.

In that context I agree that AI could be more acceptable. > @NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

We agree on that point of transmission imitation and inspiration. We differ on one major crucial point, you want to give the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans. I don't. Because they machines. But you probably don't consider artistic creation as craftsmanship. Mostly when I read your comment, it seems to be > @simonnowis said:

@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

You know as much as me, that those learning systems have stolen for a few years and in total impunity, Copyrighted material from real artists made of flesh and bones. The most flagrant exemple is how artists' voices have been stolen without their consent. That's a clear infringement of intellectual property.

This is simply untrue. Anything original (or even derivative) created by a person can be copyrighted. And all of these works can in turn become the subject of new or derivative works by others so long as they do not run afoul of copyright laws.

You're telling me that it is legally and morally acceptable to steal, let's say Billie Eilish voice without her consent, make millions on royalties, as long as the song her stolen voice is used on is an original ? That's insane

simonnowis

) @nuem so i need to ask the services for "rights" ... what if i fed their rights into a legal modal of my own ::)

maybe the law leans too much on words, and not enough on spirit?

for me @jankun's point ...re: giving " the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans" is the crux ... we now Live in the world where corporations have personhood, and we see how that's going ... decisions made now will ripple into the future

AudioGus

@Krupa said:
I still think that incorporation of it into more controllable tools is the key though, prompting can only take so far the creativity and control needed for engaging outcomes. Without this, it’s going to be impossible to direct content in a deep or meaningful way, maybe if the large language models are incorporated into ‘actors’ then it could be interesting, a dialogue between director and actor, establishing motivation and subtext into their performance… still seems a long way off to me though.

As far as still images are concerned there are extremely powerful tools for controlling the outcome. Whether or not the outcome is engaging entirely depends on the human using it. Prompting is just the tip of the iceberg most newbs do not get beyond, img2img workflows and ControlNet are insanely powerful. But then people say 'well that isn't the AI then is it?', I suppose not. But most people's use of the word AI doesn't even seem to fit the reality of what these things are and how they operate anyway.

NeuM

@JanKun said:

@Krupa said:

@wim said:

@espiegel123 said:
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.

^ This. (emphasis mine.)

What I don't like about the potential direction this is all going is that it may increasingly de-motivate people to create (and think) on their own. I don't really think that'll happen as creativity is part of the human spirit and I believe will always find ways to push through. Thinking and learning ... maybe not so much? We'll see.

This is probably the most important point, I think that possibly, if some sort of arrangement where the scraped data can be recompensed, then there’s a chance that the whole system will remain viable in the long term. Without fresh input it will eventually run out of steam, both in sheer output but mostly from an unwillingness of people to contribute to something that takes from them but gives them nothing back. Someone is stealing somewhere, maybe not the users, they’re maybe more receiving stolen goods? I have to say I’m not at the point where I’m at all comfortable thinking about passing it off as my own work, that’s just my moral compass though.

I’m also not sure if the regurgitation problem where AI source degenerates when fed back into the system has been solved yet?

I still think that incorporation of it into more controllable tools is the key though, prompting can only take so far the creativity and control needed for engaging outcomes. Without this, it’s going to be impossible to direct content in a deep or meaningful way, maybe if the large language models are incorporated into ‘actors’ then it could be interesting, a dialogue between director and actor, establishing motivation and subtext into their performance… still seems a long way off to me though.

In that context I agree that AI could be more acceptable. > @NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

We agree on that point of transmission imitation and inspiration. We differ on one major crucial point, you want to give the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans. I don't. Because they machines. But you probably don't consider artistic creation as craftsmanship. Mostly when I read your comment, it seems to be > @simonnowis said:

@neum ... but when the machines create everything for us ... ideas are all we may have to create?

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@JanKun said:

@AudioGus said:

@NeuM said:

@JanKun said:

@NeuM said:
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs

Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?

Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.

yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.

"Bach ? Coltrane? Nah, all the same stuff. they use that same boring diatonic shit"

I understand your argument. Let's get rid of intellectual property and copyrights. Every idea, every novel, every movie or image belongs to me, even if I don't have a clue how it was made or what it actually means. it's basically more or less the same "stuff" so it doesn't matter, I can rip it off.
Today, thanks to you, I can at last declare without any shame that I am Stanley Kubrick. I am Charlie Parker. I am Omar Khayyam and Frida Kahlo. Everyone, all at once. Yes !!!

I'm not making any arguments against intellectual property rights. I favor all legal protections for authors, artists, inventors, etc. But ideas cannot be protected. And making something new or different based on someone else's ideas is fair game for humans and machine learning systems.

You know as much as me, that those learning systems have stolen for a few years and in total impunity, Copyrighted material from real artists made of flesh and bones. The most flagrant exemple is how artists' voices have been stolen without their consent. That's a clear infringement of intellectual property.

This is simply untrue. Anything original (or even derivative) created by a person can be copyrighted. And all of these works can in turn become the subject of new or derivative works by others so long as they do not run afoul of copyright laws.

You're telling me that it is legally and morally acceptable to steal, let's say Billie Eilish voice without her consent, make millions on royalties, as long as the song her stolen voice is used on is an original ? That's insane

Are you telling me someone HAS done that? Or are you saying someone COULD do that? The fact is, neither of those things have happened.

Are creators/prompters copying the works of obscure people or are they copying well known people?

For example, people on YouTube are creating new works based on the voices of alive and dead singers. If any measurable money changes hands, you can bet the legal representation for those artists are getting involved immediately.

NeuM

@simonnowis said:
) @nuem so i need to ask the services for "rights" ... what if i fed their rights into a legal modal of my own ::)

maybe the law leans too much on words, and not enough on spirit?

for me @jankun's point ...re: giving " the same artistic creation rights to machines as humans" is the crux ... we now Live in the world where corporations have personhood, and we see how that's going ... decisions made now will ripple into the future

No. Laws are based on very specific criteria. When laws are unclear, that’s when lawsuits happen to clear them up.

simonnowis

@neum lucky then that the scraping occurred before words could be written down to stop it

) it's clear we come at this from different perspectives