zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Surely, if the next Stable Diffusion had to be trained from a dataset that has been purged of images that were not under a permissive license, this would at most be a minor setback on AI's road to obsoleting painting that is more craft than art. Do artists not realise this (perhaps because they have some kind of conceit along the lines of "it only can produce good-looking images because it is rearranging pieces of some Real Artists' works it was trained on"), are they hoping to inspire overshoot legislation (perhaps something following the music industry model in several countries: AI-generated images assumed pirated until proven otherwise, with protection money to be paid to an artists' guild?), or is this just a desperate rearguard action?

>>4bpp+65
Imagine you are an artist and you have developed your unique style.

Would you mind if AI starts creating art like yours?

What if your clients tell you they bought the AI generated art instead of yours?

>>Tepix+N5
Would you mind if there was another person who copied your style? What if your clients...?

Yeah, sure you'd mind. However, we have decided as a society that "style" is not protected.

>>Feepin+K7
“We” decide on today’s issues, not on all future possibilities. The reason for that decision in the past was to allow many creators to create without being too held back by “private property” signs everywhere. The current situation allows AI to create but demotivates creators. Now it’s time to think what will we do when AI wouldn’t pick a new style and there are not enough creators anymore who can or want to do that, whether it is a near future problem or maybe not a problem at all, and what should we decide again.

Simply hiding in an obsolete technicality is sure a wrong way to handle it.

>>wruza+4a
Style is entirely subjective and impossible to define. Van Gogh had a style. Are we going to say that we would want a society where only Van Gogh is allowed to make Impressionist paintings? Who decides if your painting is similar enough to Van Gogh that it’s illegal? What if your style is simplistic. Are you going to need to compare your art to all published art to make sure a court couldn’t find it “too similar”? What if we make a painting with AI that is a mix of Picasso and Van Gogh? Style?

It’s a stupid concept. It would never work. Even the visualizations we see that are explicitly attempting to copy another artist’s style are often still clearly not exactly the same.

>>oneoff+nf1
I don’t think style will be a subject here at all. Maybe we’ll settle on that AI user must take an exicit permission before training on someone’s content and humans must not.

>>wruza+zl1
Sure, we can do that.

My argument is just, and has always been, that this is a novel right that is not covered by existing legislation.