Mahlzeit @ Mahlzeit @feddit.de

Posts

1

Comments

90

Joined

2 yr. ago

They almost certainly had, as it was downloaded from the net. Some stuff gets published accidentally or illegally, but that's hardly something they can be expected to detect or police.

They do not have permission to pass it on. It might be an issue if they didn't stop it.

Do you have more info on that case, please? It's fine if it's in danish.

The belief that only humans can be creative is interestingly parallel to intelligent design creationism. The latter is fundamentally a religious faith, but it strongly appeals to the intuition that anything that happens needs a humanoid creator.

I have been thinking the exact same.

Better movie comparison: A.I. Artificial Intelligence by Steven Spielberg

The Statute of Anne 1710 gives this justification: [...]for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books.

There are many precursors, but I don't think they can be called copyright in the modern sense. All guilds had monopolies which they defended at the expense of society. It was a feature of feudalism that the elites sought to prevent change to preserve their positions.

But yes, copyright is the major remaining limitation on the freedom of the (printing) press.

(It's interesting how many of the demands to regulate AI are parallel to the controls on the printing press, in the first few centuries after its introduction in Europe.)

Not as far as I know. The continental European copyright-equivalent preserves feudal ideas.

Rulers granted monopolies to their cronies to allow them to extract money. These privileges were finally abandoned in the wake of the French Revolution. Ethical considerations aside, this was necessary to allow for industrialization/economic development. Except for "copyright", which is democratized by automatically granting it to everyone, rather than being a special favor. The continental patent system works much like the US one, granting a "mere" 20 year monopoly. Copyright duration is tied to the death of the author, showing its nature as a personal privilege.

Small wonder then that the US copyright industry has come to dominate. Unfortunately, it has leveraged this power for rent-seeking so that much of the harmful, European model was adopted in the US.

You are right, though, that the European model has no regard for public benefit but is quite concerned with the "honor" of the creator.

The situation today is that AI images are copyrighted (or not) just like any other images.

Given the power of the copyright industry, I doubt that this will be cut back. In the interest of society, it should be, but denying copyright to AI imagery is not the best place to do this.

The original intention of copyright was the same as that of patents: To encourage the creation of new works by making it possible to monetize them through licensing. AI images can be very expensive to make, depending on what goes into them. Without copyright on these images, we might miss out.

ETA: This purpose of copyright is given in the US Constitution (though it is older). US Americans could think about that. IP is property created to serve the public. That's the only justification for property to be found in that document.

This is not a time for half measures. We need a complete ban on AI manufacturing paperclips now!

Just because fully automatic factories are complete sci-fi, does not mean that we have the luxury to take care of urgent matters.

The model cards for Stable Diffusion 1.5 and 2.1 estimate the CO2 emissions as 11.25 tons and 12 tons for training. XL lacks the info.

A transatlantic flight (round-trip) is about 1 ton per pax. So, while every little bit helps, ML is not where you can make the big gains in lowering emissions.

If you generate images for an hour, it might be about the same as playing a game, depending on how fast you prompt.

But you're quite right. For most end users it's entertainment, so this is the proper context.

Ironic, given that Krita came out against AI.

Copyright is, at its heart, about the right to make copies. If no direct connection can be made to another work then it is clearly not a copy and therefore...

Your fears don't seem plausible, either. A person or company doing AI training only needs 1 single copy. It's hard to see how that would translate to more than a few extra copies sold; at best, maybe a few dozen or a few hundred in the long run. I can see how going to court over a single copy of each item in their catalog is worth it for the larger corporations but what you fear just doesn't make financial sense to me.

Isn't it a challenge?

Can you give me an example of how that makes the difference? I mentioned Paparazzi pics earlier.

Just the fact that, because a human has done it, it is something actually attainable by a human.

I think I am misunderstanding something. It is not attainable to be a person like influencers typically pretend to be. It's only possible to be a pretender, just like it's possible to be a CGI artist creating AI imagery.

They have all the imperfections that the artists want them to have. They age as much or as little as they are made to. That's not so different from human celebrity personas. Sometimes we get a Paparazzi photo, showing how they really look, but is that occasional reality check so different from rationally knowing that it is all fantasy?

(I say "rationally knowing" because one criticism of unrealistic beauty is that it may be shifting our unconscious knowledge of what is normal. If that is true, then rational knowledge is not helpful.)

Even tho the influences project an fake front, you can still be them, as they are real.

I think this goes to the heart of the argument. I don't think that is good.

Influencers (and other celebrities) typically portray themselves as being happy and well-adjusted, living exciting and fulfilling lives; all while being surrounded by luxury products with generous marketing departments. I don't think that the idea that you could actually be such a person is psychologically beneficial to anyone (except those brands, obvs).

So much this. Most people under 40 must have grown up with video games. Shouldn't they have noticed at some point that the enemies and NPCs are AI-controlled? Some games even say that in the settings.

I don't see the point in the expression "AGI" either. There's a fundamental difference between the if-else AI of current games and the ANNs behind LLMs. But there is no fundamental change needed to make an ANN-AI that is more general. At what point along that continuum do we talk of AGI? Why should that even be a goal in itself? I want more useful and energy-efficient software tools. I don't care if it meets any kind of arbitrary definition.

I see that not everyone's a cynic, yet.

What does that mean, though?

It's a copyright management firm. Some countries have government-sponsored monopolists for that. This looks like one of those.

The author of a song and the performers may not be the same (most obvious with covers). Most of the money collected by Agadu is presumably paid out to the authors/songwriters (or whoever they sold the rights to?), minus management fees. Whether the pay-out scheme is fair, may be another point of contention. Think about a live band playing covers by various authors in some bar: How is it tracked what they play, and how much should be given to each of the many different authors? I don't know how that works in Uruguay, but my country has a system of that sort.