And if the odds of that happening are literally zero, what then? If the only feasible outcome of immediate, widespread AI adoption is an empty suit using the heel of their $750 Allen Edmonds shoe to grind the face of humanity even further into the mud, should we still plow on full steam ahead?
The single biggest lesson humanity has failed to learn despite getting repeatedly smacked in the face since the industrial revolution is that sometimes new technologies and ideas aren't worth the cost despite the benefits. Factories came and covered vast swaths of land in soot and ash, turned pristine rivers and lakes into flaming rivers of toxic sludge, and poisoned the earth. Cars choked the skies with smog, poisoned an entire generation with lead, and bulldozed entire neighborhoods and parks so that they could be paved over for parking lots and clogged freeways. Single use plastics choke the life out of our oceans, clog our waterways with garbage, and microplastics have infused themselves into our very biology, with health implications that will endure for generations. Social media killed the last remaining vestiges of polite discourse, opened the floodgates on misinformation, and gave a safe space for conspiracy theories and neonazis to fester. And through it all, we continue to march relentlessly towards a climate catastrophe that can no longer be prevented, with the only remaining variable being where the impact will lie on the spectrum from "life will suck for literally everyone, some worse then others" to "humanity will fall victim to its own self-created mass extinction event."
With multiple generations coming to the realization that all the vaunted progress of mankind will directly make their lives worse, an obvious trend line of humanity plowing ahead with the hot new thing and ignoring the consequences even after they become obvious and detrimental to society as a whole, and the many, instantly-obvious negative impacts AI can have, is it any wonder that so many are standing up and saying "No?"
Mmm, fair enough. I'm just... really skeptical of the political compass in general and pretty much any time it appears I can immediately discount it as fash-coded BS. There's much better ways to demonstrate this IMO.
Are... are you unironically posting a political compass meme in support of your argument? What's next, you're gonna bust out the ouija board? Gonna read some chicken entrails? Are you gonna call Miss Cleo and get her opinion?
It's literally not the same as digital art and I find the comparison offensive. One is a human directly putting pixels on the screen, the other is output from a program that processed millions of pieces of actual artwork into the creative equivalent of pink slime.
It's interesting that you completely missed the point of my post and how there's a fundamental difference between taking a photo and typing a prompt into an AI. :D
The way your response was worded came across as saying that the default arrangement is the commissioner receiving the copyright for the art unless otherwise specified, not the artist. My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
And yet that effort to make something from AI is trivial compared to the effort required to become a professional artist or photographer. If I commission art from a human, I'm curating and fine-tuning the output by browsing the artist's gallery, deciding which artist to commission based on their art style, deciding on a prompt to give the artist, and revising the output by adjusting my prompt based on the artist's preliminary sketch. Yet despite all that effort, I don't get the copyright for the completed artwork, because I didn't make it.
I wholeheartedly and completely reject the notion that human creativity has any more than de minimis influence on AI art. It's no more a tool than an actual live artist is a tool.
Hahaha, hahaha, no. That is absolutely NOT the default arrangement. Unless otherwise negotiated in the contract, the artist retains the copyright for the produced work and is free to use it as they please, including putting it in their portfolio, making further edits to the work, reusing it for other purposes, etc. The commissioner gets a copy of the finished product, but by default has few rights to use it themselves. Technically, I've personally infringed an artist's copyright by cropping a work I commissioned from them to use as an icon. However, the vast majority of artists don't typw enforce this aspect of their IP rights, due to a lack of resources and also because it would shred their reputation and kill their business.
Explicit transfer/licensure of copyright can be negotiated, but the most artists charge an extremely hefty fee for transferring the full copyright, often double or triple the price of the work itself. Most individual commissioners don't bother as a result, but commercial organizations looking to reuse the commissioned work must negotiate a license for the work in order to avoid a nasty infringement lawsuit.
No, because the human involvement in creating AI art is so little that it's considered de minimis --i.e. so minimal that it's not worth talking into account. All you're doing is putting a prompt into the generator--regardless of how much time and effort you put into crafting the prompt, it's the AI interpreting that prompt and deciding how to convert it into an image, not you. In comparison, when you take a photograph, you're interpreting the scene, you're deciding that the object you're photographing is interesting enough for a photo, you're deciding what should and shouldn't be in the shot, you're deciding the composition of the shot, and you're deciding what settings and filters to use in the shot.
It's like the difference between someone taking a sketch of a model and making 20 revisions/alterations to the sketch before inking/coloring it, and a picky commissioner paying an artist to draw something and asking the artist to make 20 revisions before approving color/lines.
Yeah, like... I'm not on beehaw myself, but if beehaw goes, I'd probably end up leaving myself. One of my biggest complaints about Lemmy in general is the lack of special interest communities. There's politics, porn, general news, technology news (which is mostly complaining about That One Guy), Linux discussion, general memes like you'd see on Twitter or Reddit, and a trickle of more niche memes. There's a complete dearth of content for niche communities like individual games or special interest hobbies, because the userbase is simply too small to support a healthy special interest community. If Beehaw migrates off Lemmy, it will take a big chunk of that already too-small userbase with it, and the problem will be exacerbated even further. If that happens, I don't know if it's worth sticking around.
First, it's important to find an instance that caters to your interests, especially if you have more niche hobbies. Once you're set up, search for and follow hashtags related to your personal interests, and use those to find accounts you like. Use hashtags in your own posts so that people can discover you more easily, and browse users that follow you to see if they'd be interesting to follow back and expand your network out. Keep an eye on the local and federated timeline for interesting posts, which includes all posts from people on the same instance and from all federated instances. Eventually, as you build up a follow list (and especially as you follow highly active accounts) your followed accounts will start introducing you to new accounts themselves through boosting posts.
It's more work since you're building the network yourself instead of having it spoon-fed to you by an algorithm, but it's overall much more rewarding, and lets you tailor your experience to your own personal preferences.
And we're saying that if peeling out knowledge that someone has a right to have forgotten is difficult or impossible, that knowledge should not have been used to begin with. If enforcement means big tech companies have to throw out models because they used personal information without knowledge or consent, boo fucking hoo, let me find a Lilliputian to build a violin for me to play.
Yeah, I feel like having someone who can cast Magic Missile is almost mandatory for that fight, simply because the illusions have 1 HP, are very spread out, and Magic Missile can target multiple enemies and is guaranteed to hit. It's perfect for killing almost all of the illusions in a single turn.
I think it's sorta okay that the enemies don't get too much stronger, especially since (at least for casters) a lot of the added power comes in the form of gaining access to stupidly OP spells like Hypnotic Pattern. I don't think it would be very fun if enemies started using tactics that amounted to "Hahaha, I rolled higher initiative so now you don't get to play for the next three rounds while I can do whatever I want."
At least you've gotten a post from the community in the past week, it's been months since anybody posted anything in only battlebots community on lemmy. I know it's the off-season, but still...
If Google took samples from millions of different songs that were under copyright and created a website that allowed users to mix them together into new songs, they would be sued into oblivion before you could say "unauthorized reproduction."
You simply cannot compare one single person memorizing a book to corporations feeding literally millions of pieces of copyrighted material into a blender and acting like the resulting sausage is fine because "only a few rats fell into the vat, what's the big deal"
Eccitaze @ Eccitaze @yiffit.net Posts 4Comments 338Joined 2 yr. ago
If you believe Google isn't planning on eventually training Bard on Gmail, then I have a half dozen bridges to sell you.