zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI.

For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged by Copilot.

For myself, I am skeptical of intellectual property in the first place. I say go for it.

>>kweing+v6
I am a programmer who has written extensively on my blog and HN against Copilot.

I am also not a hypocrite; I do not like DALL-E or Stable Diffusion either.

As a sibling comment implies, these AI tools give more power to people who control data, i.e., big companies or wealthy people, while at the same time, they take power away from individuals.

Copilot is bad for society. DALL-E and Stable Diffusion are bad for society.

I don't know what the answer is, but I sure wish I had the resources to sue these powerful entities.

>>ghowar+99
I’m a programmer and a songwriter and I am not worried about these tools and I don’t think they are bad for society.

What did the photograph do to the portrait artist? What did the recording do to the live musician?

Here’s some highfalutin art theory on the matter, from almost a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

>>willia+5a
But this isn’t like photography and portrait artistry. This is more like a wealthy person stealing your entire art catalog, laundering it in some fancy way, and then claiming they are the original creator. Stable Diffusion has literally been used to create new art by screenshotting someone’s live-streamed art creation process as the seed. While creating derivative work has always been considered art(such as deletion poetry and collage), it’s extremely uncommon and blasé to never attribute the original(s).

>>Samoye+0b
> This is more like a wealthy person stealing your entire art catalog, laundering it in some fancy way, and then claiming they are the original creator.

If I take a song, cut it up, and sing over it, my release is valid. If I parody your work, that's my work. If you paint a picture of a building and I go to that spot and take a photograph of that building it is my work.

I can derive all sorts of things, things that I own, from things that others have made.

Fair use is a thing: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

As for talking about the originals, would an artist credit every piece of inspiration they have ever encountered over a lifetime? Publishing a seed seems fine as a nice thing to do, but pointing at the billion pictures that went into the drawing seems silly.

>>insani+Xb
Fair use is an affirmative defense. Others can still sue you for copying, and you will have to hope a judge agrees with your defense. How do you think Google v. Oracle would have turned out if Google's defense was "no your honor, we didn't copy the Java sources. We just used those sources as input to our creative algorithms, and this is what they independently produced"?

If I take a song, cut it up, and sing over it, my release is valid

"valid", how? You still have to pay royalties to the copyright holder of the original song, and you don't get to claim it as your own.