Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).

It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.

It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).

It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.

It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.

But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.

Quote from: RPGPundit on Today at 05:34:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AMIt's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.

You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.

But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.

The interior of someone's head has never been subject to copyright. However, it is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

A non-computerized parallel would be if someone published a book called "How to Draw like Boris Vallejo" and included in it a bunch of traced, broken-down, and analyzed versions of Vallejo's works. Someone who learned from the book might create a painting that doesn't violate Vallejo's copyright, but the book itself does violate Vallejo's copyright.

I think copyright has been made over-broad and especially lasts insanely too long, but I still support the principle of patent and copyright to incentivize creation.

The idea that machine learning trained on something is copyright violation is spread by people who have no idea how either of those things work.

If they scream loudly enough, maybe their politicians will falsely extend it to machine generated things though- they'll still be wrong, but now they'll have government force on their side.

AI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.

Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.

Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PMYou mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.

You mean the countermeasures which don't actually work and creating media which isn't worth copying?

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.

Quote from: RPGPundit on Today at 08:26:32 PMAI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.

Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.

The European Union has entered the chat...

There's a reason the EU can't produce technological innovation nor compete with those who do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on Today at 08:47:10 PM

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.

Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.

Yes, if an AI is trained only on work that is wholly owned by the corporation doing the training, then there is no copyright issue. Similarly there is no issue if it is only trained on public domain works.

However, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.

If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.

I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.

https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists