Ionathus's Random Banter #249 -- Directionless Rambling Is Now Mandatory

[Bartmanhomer]

So, again, why is it fine for AI to rampant violate copyright and IP protections?

You just answer your own question earlier.

[Bohandas]

It doesn't violate copyright or IP protections because transformative use is allowed by these. And this is just about the most transformative use possible.

[Keltest]

If it were substantially transformed yes. The cut-up technique is neither illegal nor immoral and preserves far more of the original text than training an AI would

And in any case, this would be more like taking those and 1000 other copyrighted works, and using a single word from each

EDIT:
Saying that AI uses artists' work is a little bit like describing a product made entirely out of bitumen and petrochemicals as "plant based". There's some technical truth to it but it's totally misleading and belies how completely it's been transformed

"They've stolen from so many artists you can't tell what belongs to who anymore." isn't exactly the stirring defense of AI art that you seem to think it is.

[Bohandas]

"They've stolen from so many artists you can't tell what belongs to who anymore." isn't exactly the stirring defense of AI art that you seem to think it is.

The point is you can't steal a single word. Individual words don't belong to anyone. And on average the AI is going to use less than that from any given source for any given output.

So, again, why is it fine for AI to rampant violate copyright and IP protections?

In addition to transformative use being allowed, there's also the matter of whether copyright of IP shpuld exist at all. Whatever nobke rationale they may have once had the fact of the matter is that at this point they function primarily to prop up the corporate machine.

Furthermore even if its original purpose were intact its worthiness would still be in question. I view the economy as existing solely to provide people with goods and services. Workers and investors alike are incidental at best; they have value only insofar as their presence enables the consumer to acquire goods and services. If the same goods and services can be produced more efficiently without them then they must fall away. In the limit everything becomes free and this everyone is free

[Keltest]

"Artists dont deserve to exist or get paid for their work" is... one heck of a hot take, ill grant you. How do you plan to break it to the artists that youve decided they arent allowed to make a living anymore?

[Peelee]

You just answer your own question earlier.

I'm not confused here. It isn't that I don't know the answer. I'm asking this to you, specifically, because earlier you said it's ok, and then I gave an example where it isn't ok. So I want you to tell me why you think it's ok for some things and not ok for other things.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm not confused here. It isn't that I don't know the answer. I'm asking this to you, specifically, because earlier you said it's ok, and then I gave an example where it isn't ok. So I want you to tell me why you think it's ok for some things and not ok for other things.

No. I don't have to explain my reason to you or anyone else at the matter.

[Peelee]

No. I don't have to explain my reason to you or anyone else at the matter.

Sure, you don't. But if you just say "I believe in this one thing, even though i readily admit it seems hypocritical, and I won't explain any of my reasoning", then why am I even listening to you? Your opinion doesn't really matter to anyone except you, and you're not trying to argue for your position. Why should anybody care?

[Metastachydium]

Yes, but SO IS THE ARTWORK PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE THEFT OF. Nobody is mad at them using Michaelangelo's work, it's the trawling of sites like Deviant Art.

For one, I can only hope they will persevere in that practice, specifically. DeviantArt's always had weird corners I didn't want to know about, but one of the biggest problem of the place right now's that it's getting progressively buried under an avalanche of AI-generated rubbish as of now. The Machines trying to fish and all that gets caught in their net being their own crap would feel kinda poetic.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sure, you don't. But if you just say "I believe in this one thing, even though i readily admit it seems hypocritical, and I won't explain any of my reasoning", then why am I even listening to you? Your opinion doesn't really matter to anyone except you, and you're not trying to argue for your position. Why should anybody care?

Ok, my apologies for being rude and defensive earlier. My argument is that AI artwork isn't illegal. Sure is unethical for some human perspective but to me AI isn't human last time I check. It there were some laws about AI artwork then I would be on your side.

[LaZodiac]

Ok, my apologies for being rude and defensive earlier. My argument is that AI artwork isn't illegal. Sure is unethical for some human perspective but to me AI isn't human last time I check. It there were some laws about AI artwork then I would be on your side.

AI is a machine used by humans and is thus susceptible to human laws. If a wild animal attacked someone that is not a crime, but if you ordered your dog to attack someone that is a crime you committed. AI as a tool commits crime on behalf of the people who use it and made it.

There are laws about AI artwork- though they're still in their infancy due to the fresh frontier this all is.

[Bartmanhomer]

AI is a machine used by humans and is thus susceptible to human laws. If a wild animal attacked someone that is not a crime, but if you ordered your dog to attack someone that is a crime you committed. AI as a tool commits crime on behalf of the people who use it and made it.

There are laws about AI artwork- though they're still in their infancy due to the fresh frontier this all is.

That's fair since you put it that way. I can't argue with that.

[Anonymouswizard]

For one, I can only hope they will persevere in that practice, specifically. DeviantArt's always had weird corners I didn't want to know about, but one of the biggest problem of the place right now's that it's getting progressively buried under an avalanche of AI-generated rubbish as of now. The Machines trying to fish and all that gets caught in their net being their own crap would feel kinda poetic.

Yeah, the art get getting slowly worse as it's fed more of its own artwork would be delicious.

Although honestly I suspect what'll kill generative AI is the fact it's output packs copyright. It'll hopefully just end being being a niche tool used to make stuff like tokens for private D&D games, where practically nobody cares about copyright in either direction.

Ok, my apologies for being rude and defensive earlier. My argument is that AI artwork isn't illegal. Sure is unethical for some human perspective but to me AI isn't human last time I check. It there were some laws about AI artwork then I would be on your side.

'It's not technically illegal' is generally considered a really bad argument. It's not illegal for me to go to a friend's house and put 2000 jars of English mustard in their fridge, should I do that?

That aside, the issue a lot of us have isn't actually this bit. It's the humans deciding to steal the art to shove into the algorithm in the first place. Then it can't actually do anything with all that stolen artwork until a human inputs 'cute cat eating tuna'.

I really want to go on a rant about a certain kind of tool here, but I can't.

There are laws about AI artwork- though they're still in their infancy due to the fresh frontier this all is.

Although there are some rulings on current laws! As I said it's considered uncopyrightable, which feels like justice.

[Peelee]

t's not illegal for me to go to a friend's house and put 2000 jars of English mustard in their fridge, should I do that?

I thought that was tradition, if not compulsory.

Although there are some rulings on current laws! As I said it's considered uncopyrightable, which feels like justice.

Does it? Would you be willing to extend lack of copyright to someone extensively creating something entirely in photoshop? What about ArtCreate, this new app I made which is halfway between photoshop and AI art? After all, it's all tools that lack any ability to create on their own and only "create" at the direction of a person, and the extent that they can "create" vsn vary. Where, exactly, would you put the line of "this is too computerized to allow copyright"? Is it justice to disallow ownership based solely on the program as medium of creation?

[Rynjin]

I thought that was tradition, if not compulsory.

Does it? Would you be willing to extend lack of copyright to someone extensively creating something entirely in photoshop? What about ArtCreate, this new app I made which is halfway between photoshop and AI art? After all, it's all tools that lack any ability to create on their own and only "create" at the direction of a person, and the extent that they can "create" vsn vary. Where, exactly, would you put the line of "this is too computerized to allow copyright"? Is it justice to disallow ownership based solely on the program as medium of creation?

1.) If pornography can be classified as "you know it when yous ee it", this can be too.

2.) AI art creation tools are not in question, the methods of data sampling are. And those can be enforced just fine with no grey areas. "You have to have permission from the artists to use their data for training". That is ALREADY the law, the issue is the industry works on a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" paradigm and they eat the fines for violating the law as a cost of doing business. The penalties need to be steeper.

[DataNinja]

Although honestly I suspect what'll kill generative AI is the fact it's output packs copyright.

Not to mention, from what I've picked up, what seems likely to cause problems for at least the visual side of things is that you can't really make an image and then make tweaks with having that same image. There's no way to give feedback and make alterations in the same way a human is able to. Which is a pretty big part of the whole creative process.

Though I've also been hearing that a lot of AI stuff in general literally needs more data to go to its next generation then even exists for it to consume right now. There's some sort of irony there that it needs more human-made content to be created when it's trying to replace humans making content.

[Anonymouswizard]

Does it?

Yes, the tools created by mass copyright infringement creating nothing that has a copyright feels like justice.

What's behind the art may be eligible for copyright, although I'm sure we'll see someone trying to flog a ChatGPT written comic soon. We might finally see plots worse than those in Youngblood.

Would you be willing to extend lack of copyright to someone extensively creating something entirely in photoshop?

No, because:
1) Photoshop was not created via mass copyright infringement, and
B) an actual human had to manipulate every last element

What about ArtCreate, this new app I made which is halfway between photoshop and AI art?

Considering how these programs are 'trained' if it ever exists I'll make pants stew.

More seriously, grey areas are nothing new in copyright law, and even intentionally there. Something something reaction channels.

After all, it's all tools that lack any ability to create on their own and only "create" at the direction of a person, and the extent that they can "create" vsn vary. Where, exactly, would you put the line of "this is too computerized to allow copyright"?

Like with reaction channels drawing a hard line will always be a bad move.

Is it justice to disallow ownership based solely on the program as medium of creation?

In this case? Yes. This is not creation, unless flipping through Ye Olde Big Booke Of Themed Paintings and stopping on a random page is creating art.

It's like how NFTs are a completely useless invention that does nothing more efficiently than methods which existed before the tech.

Not to mention, from what I've picked up, what seems likely to cause problems for at least the visual side of things is that you can't really make an image and then make tweaks with having that same image. There's no way to give feedback and make alterations in the same way a human is able to. Which is a pretty big part of the whole creative process.

Don't worry, if the first piece I 'create' isn't suitable I can flip to a different page in the book!

Though I've also been hearing that a lot of AI stuff in general literally needs more data to go to its next generation then even exists for it to consume right now. There's some sort of irony there that it needs more human-made content to be created when it's trying to replace humans making content.

Deliciously hilarious, but not unexpected.

[Peelee]

1.) If pornography can be classified as "you know it when yous ee it", this can be too.

You do realize that the Stewart test is incredibly contentious in legal world due to being a horrible rationale, since it offers little to no help in letting people avoid crossing over into forbidden territory, and also is purely subjective, meaning it is rife for abuse and arbitrary judgement.

Like with reaction channels drawing a hard line will always be a bad move.

But necessary if you want to get it legislated effectively.

[Anonymouswizard]

Behold, pornography!

[Rynjin]

You do realize that the Stewart test is incredibly contentious in legal world due to being a horrible rationale, since it offers little to no help in letting people avoid crossing over into forbidden territory, and also is purely subjective, meaning it is rife for abuse and arbitrary judgement.

And? Just means it wouldn't be the first time a vague and awful law was made.

[Keltest]

And? Just means it wouldn't be the first time a vague and awful law was made.

I feel like the intent is to avoid those, as a rule.

Not that im particularly concerned with the rights of art thieves to continue stealing art, but in principle things ought to be done right the first time.

[Peelee]

And?

.... And so we shouldn't strive to have more things be legislated vaguely and arbitrarily, as you advocated in the first post i responded to.

Kinda thought that was pretty clear, i gotta say.

[Bohandas]

For one, I can only hope they will persevere in that practice, specifically. DeviantArt's always had weird corners I didn't want to know about, but one of the biggest problem of the place right now's that it's getting progressively buried under an avalanche of AI-generated rubbish as of now.

My experience with art sites is that they were already buried under an avalanche of handmade rubbish such as adoptables and 'your-character-here's

[Bartmanhomer]

'It's not technically illegal' is generally considered a really bad argument. It's not illegal for me to go to a friend's house and put 2000 jars of English mustard in their fridge, should I do that?

That aside, the issue a lot of us have isn't actually this bit. It's the humans deciding to steal the art to shove into the algorithm in the first place. Then it can't actually do anything with all that stolen artwork until a human inputs 'cute cat eating tuna'.

I really want to go on a rant about a certain kind of tool here, but I can't.

Yes. That's not right about stealing art and shove it into the algorithm in the first place.

[Rynjin]

.... And so we shouldn't strive to have more things be legislated vaguely and arbitrarily, as you advocated in the first post i responded to.

Kinda thought that was pretty clear, i gotta say.

Well thankfully, as I mentioned in the other 3/4 of the post you cut off, that's not what's being legislated anyway.

[Peelee]

Well thankfully, as I mentioned in the other 3/4 of the post you cut off, that's not what's being legislated anyway.

I cut that off because i wasn't interested in getting into a debate on "is it really already legislated if there no penalties at all for ignoring it?", and i responded to a terrible argument that you seem to brush aside and try to ignore despite you being the one who brought it up.

[Rynjin]

Because it was a throwaway response to an equally ill-thought out point. Hence why it's a flippant few-word response while the actual response to your initial post is underneath.

[Peelee]

Because it was a throwaway response to an equally ill-thought out point. Hence why it's a flippant few-word response while the actual response to your initial post is underneath.

That'd be a good point if you didn't double down on it.

[Rynjin]

Well I'll tell ya what, I also am not really interested in having a debate with whatever thing you decide to nitpick today, so just imagine I sent you a big ASCII "thumbs up" and we'll call it a day.

[Peelee]

Well I'll tell ya what, I also am not really interested in having a debate with whatever thing you decide to nitpick today, so just imagine I sent you a big ASCII "thumbs up" and we'll call it a day.

"If bad judicial opinions were good enough for outdated rulings in the 60s, they're good enough now!"

"Whats the problem with arbitrary metrics in law?"

"Well you're just nitpicking".


The third act could use a bit of spicing up, that twist is a bit trite at this point. But I'll take the curtain call.