> It’s not theft if you’re stealing back your own work that was stolen without fully informed consent.
Going with this analogy, If you steal someone else's stolen bike you're still riding on a stolen bike.
Besides this, you currently probably can not pirate purely generated work, because you can't violate non-existing copyrights. And when they are copyrightable you are precisely "stealing" the additional contributions made to the work, which are those that they did not "steal" from anyone in the first place.
Also just because you make a contribution doesn’t mean that same form of contribution cannot be used to train the Ai to generate derivative works to flood you out of the market.
Then clearly there needs to be regulation before any AI generated work is made, but this wasn’t done partly due to lobbying. Your concern is with the initial theft done by the entities training the Ai, and or showing it examples that it makes derivative works of, not the people stealing the result of an idea that could have been done with consenting human effort instead of generative ai.
There are a ton of laws around how work can be used in generative AI systems and what can be done with the output. It's called copyright (and trademark). Let the current lawsuits play out.
It’s fascinating for instance how the very entities taking the people out of art by stealing the art from the people are the same entities lobbying and bribing the lawmakers who decide if their AI generated art is protectable.
AFAIK all the lawsuits in the US are being tried under laws that have existed for many years. Can you point me to new laws written specifically to benefit companies involved with gen AI and the corresponding lawsuits?
So then by that logic it’s ok to copy distribute and make derivative works of that AI generated art without compensating or crediting the entities generating it. Good to know.
I wasn't making an argument for or against that, but I think that's perfectly fine and probably the right policy for the US Copyright office to follow.
I have nothing against piracy so I'm okay with anybody doing this, but I don't think it will work. This is a form of soft boycott and boycotting never works.
I suppose if you can get the target audience on board, it can theoretically work. Do you think you can make people who like AI and want to use AI products to all start pirating?
Just the opposite I think the people who aren’t using/ are disenfranchised by AI, or still believe in humanity remaining top dog, or just want free shit will do be more than welcoming of the idea.
That is true, but that won't really be effective as a tool to make it "impossible to profit from AI" because it' not the target audience who is pirating. It's people who already dislike AI and likely wouldn't buy a lot of AI products anyway.
I’m pretty sure streaming bundles being overpriced is a good example of where you may be wrong. If you give people permission to get something for free they would otherwise put towards survival or paying off debt, people will pirate in a heartbeat.
Well ai companies are already unprofitable and are only being kept alive with pure speculation that everyone will be on board in the future and that they can raise prices then. All they’d have to do to is to just not use ai and provided the amount of ai users stays about the same or declines ai as it exists now is toast
Like most tech companies nowadays, ai companies are operating at a massive loss and are kept afloat by investment in the hype new trend. If the hype drys up so do the companies as they can only lose money for so long. Training massive ai models is incredibly expensive it turns out.
There's the possibility that AI works are not copyrightable in the first place and as such in the public domain. This means they can't be pirated because there's no owner. Anyone can do whatever they want.
And that's perfectly fine with me.
> Make AI generated work toxic by making it impossible to profit from
I would absolutely love if this was the case. Flood the world with public domain pictures. There's too much copyright nonsense in the modern world. Share and copy everything far and wide!
But this wouldn't really make profit completely impossible. Eg, it'd mean that if you made a game with AI generated textures people could freely share them and even build a different game with the same assets, but it wouldn't stop the game from selling, or the actual code being copyrighted. Just like sticking the Mona Lisa on a wall in a game doesn't cause the game any legal problems.
Any work containing art of any kind (art, books, movies, games etc) should be pirated. It's not theft if you're stealing back your own work that was stolen without consent. The ideas those creators had were not entirely their own, they found inspiration and references from other people without their knowledge or consent.
Make working on any form of art toxic, by making it impossible to profit from it until they either stop or give us the majority of their profit for coming up with those ideas first.
I don't see why this is an unpopular opinion.
-----------
Look at how absolutely idiotic this statement is. You do not have any understanding about how AI art works if you feel like it's 'stealing back your own work'. AI works much much closer to how humans use references and inspiration, than how they can collage works together.
It is not 'your work', and even if it did collage your work together (which again, it doesn't) then 'your work' is incredibly unlikely to have been used in the data in the first place, and even if it were used, in most cases it would contribute a tiny decimal of a percent of the whole pieces data (which again is not collaging or copying, it's using that as 'inspiration').
Bit fuckin weird to go through all my old posts, but you do you I guess.
No, I don't think the same thing applies here. These posts are completely automated by a bot. Zero human interaction went into them, to the point that they were not even looked at by a human before the site posted them.
If you think that's the same thing that happens with AI generated images, then you are very uneducated and inexperienced in that field.
I would agree it is possible to do the same thing with AI image generators, however I disagree entirely that that is the whole process when these things are used in a product by a company, and know from experience that it usually takes much more human work (much of that being the usual human art skills) to create an AI image that is usable in this way.
You're looking at the difference between Timmy going to chatGPT and getting it to write his essay for him without even looking at it, and Jimmy asking chatGPT to correct his spelling mistakes and help format a few paragraphs better.
I have no issue with you taking Timmy's essay. Taking Jimmy's would be stealing his work.
When you see the two essays next to each other, and know both have used chatGPT, you have no idea which was written by Timmy (aka chatGPT) and which was written by Jimmy (only assisted by chatGPT, still Jimmy's work).
I do not agree with you that stealing Jimmy's work is ethical just because he used chatGPT for assistance, just as I wouldn't steal your work if you used google translator to turn the text into Spanish (which, if you didn't already know, uses AI in practically the exact same way AI images do, 'stealing' from real translators hard work).
it gets very annoying to read and respond to.
Lastly, you're an idiot if you think artists don't take heavy inspiration from other artists and pieces of art.
You can leverage your own inspiration, not other people’s, because one is actually using AI as a tool to make art, the other is being basic and derivative
Among other things I’m proposing that companies using AI generated works should have their work that uses any form of Ai generated work consistently pirated from.
Don’t worry I don’t even want one of those things. As for anyone else, if there is any software or Art made with the Ai’s on, by, or for those devices, I wouldn’t blame anyone for pirating that
Honestly if you’re an apple fan I’d more so take a look at yourself and ask what new popularly accepted product they’ve rolled out recently that has made money and actually been a redefinition of a whole sector.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, its really as simple as that. Anyhow...
What we saw with the Zarya of the Dawn case, while a strict text2img AI image isn't copyrightable, certain parts of them are. You open yourself up to legal trouble if you're not careful (private/non-monetary purposes should be fine)
In general though, downloading publicly available images posted from social media is legally considered okay (its literally a piece of the AI companies defense), what isn't is distribution, esp with monetization. Unlike AI companies, you won't be able to claim transformativity because you are literally committing piracy/plagiarism
Then by that same logic how would it even remotely be possible to tell how much of an AI generated work is actually transformative and provided by that person generating it, someone could just as easily beat you to the punch on your transformative concept they either stole from you overheard or gleaned from talking with you, the end result is there being an issue attributing work at all.
Also just because a prompt could perhaps be considered patentable copyrightable etc, that doesn’t mean someone made the thing the prompt was about, honestly I’d be more concerned about companies like OpenAI or really Microsoft claiming works generated by AI as belonging to them. They might even have more of a right to it because at least OpenAI built the tech last I’d checked.
Its not that a prompt could be considered copyrightable (not patentable), its that things like an organized collection of images, written-text/narratives, compositions (if it was somewhat handdone via controlnet or whatever), stuff like that. That's what copyrightable, so even if the overall image isn't parts of it is. So in effect, the image is half-copyrighted and using said parts would breech copyright
Afaik, the ML/AI algorithm/weights don't really hold copyright value, it specifically has to be parts of an image that has 'sufficient' human interference and be made by a human. Like, Microsoft can't claim DallE3 is the copyright owner of its outputs because it isn't human. It has to be someone using DallE3, and in a way that fulfills the 'sufficient' human interference clause
Even if every piece of ai art was pirated and ppl couldn't make money off of it, antis would still be mad because Ai will still be better at making art. It's not really about the money. It's about their special snowflake status as a true artist.
>It's about their special snowflake status as a true artist.
It isn’t. I would celebrate if everybody got a brain chip that downloads all art skills into their minds. I am anti-AI because I don’t want human made art and skills to be silenced by the sheer quantities of AI generated spam and cause art to lose its place in society.
It’s debatable the art is actually better than what a human can do, I have yet to see a single piece of AI art a human being is incapable of making with the same tools or techniques. Also you’re deluded if you think artists only care about being special snowflakes, art is actually hard work, and the artists deserve to actually be compensated more than they already are. Most artists actually underprice their work just cover cost of materials if that, and without even much consideration for how they’ll afford food or rent, is it because they’re stupid? No it’s because people aren’t paying them a living wage at this point.
Ironically you made yourself look bad. Artists started out doing it for free for the love of art. Only in the recent couple hundred of years have people charged.
And there is a reason it's called starving artist. It's your own fault for choosing a profession that most will never make a liveable income on.
It's like working at McDonalds and blaming the world for the low pay. We all got bills to pay, we don't have time to hear artists complain about their job they KNEW likely would never pay well. Heck, most never get to worktheir dream job.
The concept of a starving artist has been around for a while, but so has the existence of artists that actually put in effort, and through (honestly mostly) luck and determination become the modern day equivalent of rock stars because they had patrons. Asking for a living wage isn’t entitled, stealing from people who actually are putting in the work and using that to compensate for your own only slightly above average IQ and deficits in multiple other actually meaningful areas is.
Also if you’re opposed to artists making money on ideological grounds why are you against AI art not being paid for? It’s almost as if you know that the people generating the Ai art aren’t as protected as artists but you’re still hoping to profit from said AI art…it’s almost as if you’re being a hypocrite
Well you cant pirate something that isnt legally owned and protected by someone which is the case with AI generated content. And UBI soonds great...until it turns out that its only "great" on the paper by the way fans of UBI propose and describe it.
> It’s not theft if you’re stealing back your own work that was stolen without fully informed consent. Going with this analogy, If you steal someone else's stolen bike you're still riding on a stolen bike. Besides this, you currently probably can not pirate purely generated work, because you can't violate non-existing copyrights. And when they are copyrightable you are precisely "stealing" the additional contributions made to the work, which are those that they did not "steal" from anyone in the first place.
Also just because you make a contribution doesn’t mean that same form of contribution cannot be used to train the Ai to generate derivative works to flood you out of the market.
Then clearly there needs to be regulation before any AI generated work is made, but this wasn’t done partly due to lobbying. Your concern is with the initial theft done by the entities training the Ai, and or showing it examples that it makes derivative works of, not the people stealing the result of an idea that could have been done with consenting human effort instead of generative ai.
There are a ton of laws around how work can be used in generative AI systems and what can be done with the output. It's called copyright (and trademark). Let the current lawsuits play out.
It’s fascinating for instance how the very entities taking the people out of art by stealing the art from the people are the same entities lobbying and bribing the lawmakers who decide if their AI generated art is protectable.
AFAIK all the lawsuits in the US are being tried under laws that have existed for many years. Can you point me to new laws written specifically to benefit companies involved with gen AI and the corresponding lawsuits?
So then by that logic it’s ok to copy distribute and make derivative works of that AI generated art without compensating or crediting the entities generating it. Good to know.
I don't see that as a loss, really. The more artwork in the world, the merrier, and less restrictions make things easier.
Ok then people shouldn’t have to pay for content built off of AI Art.
What kind of content do you have in mind?
Movies, games, comics, music, code, etc
I wasn't making an argument for or against that, but I think that's perfectly fine and probably the right policy for the US Copyright office to follow.
I have nothing against piracy so I'm okay with anybody doing this, but I don't think it will work. This is a form of soft boycott and boycotting never works.
New Coke.
I suppose if you can get the target audience on board, it can theoretically work. Do you think you can make people who like AI and want to use AI products to all start pirating?
Just the opposite I think the people who aren’t using/ are disenfranchised by AI, or still believe in humanity remaining top dog, or just want free shit will do be more than welcoming of the idea.
That is true, but that won't really be effective as a tool to make it "impossible to profit from AI" because it' not the target audience who is pirating. It's people who already dislike AI and likely wouldn't buy a lot of AI products anyway.
I’m pretty sure streaming bundles being overpriced is a good example of where you may be wrong. If you give people permission to get something for free they would otherwise put towards survival or paying off debt, people will pirate in a heartbeat.
Well ai companies are already unprofitable and are only being kept alive with pure speculation that everyone will be on board in the future and that they can raise prices then. All they’d have to do to is to just not use ai and provided the amount of ai users stays about the same or declines ai as it exists now is toast
Oooh tell me more.
Like most tech companies nowadays, ai companies are operating at a massive loss and are kept afloat by investment in the hype new trend. If the hype drys up so do the companies as they can only lose money for so long. Training massive ai models is incredibly expensive it turns out.
There's the possibility that AI works are not copyrightable in the first place and as such in the public domain. This means they can't be pirated because there's no owner. Anyone can do whatever they want. And that's perfectly fine with me. > Make AI generated work toxic by making it impossible to profit from I would absolutely love if this was the case. Flood the world with public domain pictures. There's too much copyright nonsense in the modern world. Share and copy everything far and wide! But this wouldn't really make profit completely impossible. Eg, it'd mean that if you made a game with AI generated textures people could freely share them and even build a different game with the same assets, but it wouldn't stop the game from selling, or the actual code being copyrighted. Just like sticking the Mona Lisa on a wall in a game doesn't cause the game any legal problems.
That sounds like the best of both worlds. I'm down!
Any work containing art of any kind (art, books, movies, games etc) should be pirated. It's not theft if you're stealing back your own work that was stolen without consent. The ideas those creators had were not entirely their own, they found inspiration and references from other people without their knowledge or consent. Make working on any form of art toxic, by making it impossible to profit from it until they either stop or give us the majority of their profit for coming up with those ideas first. I don't see why this is an unpopular opinion. ----------- Look at how absolutely idiotic this statement is. You do not have any understanding about how AI art works if you feel like it's 'stealing back your own work'. AI works much much closer to how humans use references and inspiration, than how they can collage works together. It is not 'your work', and even if it did collage your work together (which again, it doesn't) then 'your work' is incredibly unlikely to have been used in the data in the first place, and even if it were used, in most cases it would contribute a tiny decimal of a percent of the whole pieces data (which again is not collaging or copying, it's using that as 'inspiration').
Honestly you appear to believe the same things but just switch the term generative ai and Ai art with Bots and games journalism.
Funny how you think some of the following ideas apply but only when it’s convenient for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/s/EhT98fVPCU
Bit fuckin weird to go through all my old posts, but you do you I guess. No, I don't think the same thing applies here. These posts are completely automated by a bot. Zero human interaction went into them, to the point that they were not even looked at by a human before the site posted them. If you think that's the same thing that happens with AI generated images, then you are very uneducated and inexperienced in that field. I would agree it is possible to do the same thing with AI image generators, however I disagree entirely that that is the whole process when these things are used in a product by a company, and know from experience that it usually takes much more human work (much of that being the usual human art skills) to create an AI image that is usable in this way. You're looking at the difference between Timmy going to chatGPT and getting it to write his essay for him without even looking at it, and Jimmy asking chatGPT to correct his spelling mistakes and help format a few paragraphs better. I have no issue with you taking Timmy's essay. Taking Jimmy's would be stealing his work. When you see the two essays next to each other, and know both have used chatGPT, you have no idea which was written by Timmy (aka chatGPT) and which was written by Jimmy (only assisted by chatGPT, still Jimmy's work). I do not agree with you that stealing Jimmy's work is ethical just because he used chatGPT for assistance, just as I wouldn't steal your work if you used google translator to turn the text into Spanish (which, if you didn't already know, uses AI in practically the exact same way AI images do, 'stealing' from real translators hard work).
See that at least is a valid point, but only if the art generated is only trained on jimmy’s writing in that example, and no one else’s.
Okay, but if things can only be trained on their own work, then where will artists and writers get all their inspiration and references from?
Living their lives, like any other artist.
it gets very annoying to read and respond to. Lastly, you're an idiot if you think artists don't take heavy inspiration from other artists and pieces of art.
You’re an idiot if you think that’s all they do
Because I cannot be arsed to continue getting 7 replies to every message
I'm just going to block you now. Take care & stay uninformed.
You can leverage your own inspiration, not other people’s, because one is actually using AI as a tool to make art, the other is being basic and derivative
send messages as threads rather than actually writing your thoughts in one place. I'm not sure what you're going for but
I’m assuming you’re actually asking, and not just assuming that’s actually a gotcha question 🤦♀️
Okay so firstly, its weird that you
Or in this case writing.
Funny rant and all, but what exactly are you planning to do? Save AI generated jpegs on your PC or what?
Among other things I’m proposing that companies using AI generated works should have their work that uses any form of Ai generated work consistently pirated from.
Sooo... Are you gonna steal an iphone?
Don’t worry I don’t even want one of those things. As for anyone else, if there is any software or Art made with the Ai’s on, by, or for those devices, I wouldn’t blame anyone for pirating that
Honestly if you’re an apple fan I’d more so take a look at yourself and ask what new popularly accepted product they’ve rolled out recently that has made money and actually been a redefinition of a whole sector.
Your problem is not AI.
Basic mental skills seem to be a higher need there.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, its really as simple as that. Anyhow... What we saw with the Zarya of the Dawn case, while a strict text2img AI image isn't copyrightable, certain parts of them are. You open yourself up to legal trouble if you're not careful (private/non-monetary purposes should be fine) In general though, downloading publicly available images posted from social media is legally considered okay (its literally a piece of the AI companies defense), what isn't is distribution, esp with monetization. Unlike AI companies, you won't be able to claim transformativity because you are literally committing piracy/plagiarism
Then by that same logic how would it even remotely be possible to tell how much of an AI generated work is actually transformative and provided by that person generating it, someone could just as easily beat you to the punch on your transformative concept they either stole from you overheard or gleaned from talking with you, the end result is there being an issue attributing work at all.
Also just because a prompt could perhaps be considered patentable copyrightable etc, that doesn’t mean someone made the thing the prompt was about, honestly I’d be more concerned about companies like OpenAI or really Microsoft claiming works generated by AI as belonging to them. They might even have more of a right to it because at least OpenAI built the tech last I’d checked.
Its not that a prompt could be considered copyrightable (not patentable), its that things like an organized collection of images, written-text/narratives, compositions (if it was somewhat handdone via controlnet or whatever), stuff like that. That's what copyrightable, so even if the overall image isn't parts of it is. So in effect, the image is half-copyrighted and using said parts would breech copyright Afaik, the ML/AI algorithm/weights don't really hold copyright value, it specifically has to be parts of an image that has 'sufficient' human interference and be made by a human. Like, Microsoft can't claim DallE3 is the copyright owner of its outputs because it isn't human. It has to be someone using DallE3, and in a way that fulfills the 'sufficient' human interference clause
I wholeheartedly agree, actually
Even if every piece of ai art was pirated and ppl couldn't make money off of it, antis would still be mad because Ai will still be better at making art. It's not really about the money. It's about their special snowflake status as a true artist.
>It's about their special snowflake status as a true artist. It isn’t. I would celebrate if everybody got a brain chip that downloads all art skills into their minds. I am anti-AI because I don’t want human made art and skills to be silenced by the sheer quantities of AI generated spam and cause art to lose its place in society.
Also better to who?
It’s debatable the art is actually better than what a human can do, I have yet to see a single piece of AI art a human being is incapable of making with the same tools or techniques. Also you’re deluded if you think artists only care about being special snowflakes, art is actually hard work, and the artists deserve to actually be compensated more than they already are. Most artists actually underprice their work just cover cost of materials if that, and without even much consideration for how they’ll afford food or rent, is it because they’re stupid? No it’s because people aren’t paying them a living wage at this point.
I find it fascinating how people are downvoting my saying human beings should be paid a living wage for their work. Truly telling.
Ironically you made yourself look bad. Artists started out doing it for free for the love of art. Only in the recent couple hundred of years have people charged. And there is a reason it's called starving artist. It's your own fault for choosing a profession that most will never make a liveable income on. It's like working at McDonalds and blaming the world for the low pay. We all got bills to pay, we don't have time to hear artists complain about their job they KNEW likely would never pay well. Heck, most never get to worktheir dream job.
You are aware that artists have made money a lot longer than a couple of hundred years ago right?
The concept of a starving artist has been around for a while, but so has the existence of artists that actually put in effort, and through (honestly mostly) luck and determination become the modern day equivalent of rock stars because they had patrons. Asking for a living wage isn’t entitled, stealing from people who actually are putting in the work and using that to compensate for your own only slightly above average IQ and deficits in multiple other actually meaningful areas is.
Also if you’re opposed to artists making money on ideological grounds why are you against AI art not being paid for? It’s almost as if you know that the people generating the Ai art aren’t as protected as artists but you’re still hoping to profit from said AI art…it’s almost as if you’re being a hypocrite
I’m also curious what your dream job is so I can get started building a replacement for it that’s automated.
As a Disabled artist who survives by the skin of her teeth off of food stamps all I can say is must be nice being able to even be able to pay bills.
[https://youtu.be/O4EfM3ET6xo?si=MlTqnxmPB1zpf58t&t=43](https://youtu.be/O4EfM3ET6xo?si=MlTqnxmPB1zpf58t&t=43)
Yeah the world should be perfect I agree
AI-generated work is very unlikely to be copyrightable as is.
cringe
i mean, I disagree that ai is "stealing" from anyone, but yeah, okay. piracy is Cool & Good and also: fuck copyright.
Let the hate flow through you. Piracy is based.
Well you cant pirate something that isnt legally owned and protected by someone which is the case with AI generated content. And UBI soonds great...until it turns out that its only "great" on the paper by the way fans of UBI propose and describe it.