'Stealing Isn't Innovation': Hundreds of Creatives Warn Against an AI Slop Future (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180638276
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/01/22/1529228/stealing-isnt-innovation-hundreds-of-creatives-warn-against-an-ai-slop-future
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/864951/human-artistry-campaign-ai-licensing-artists
> The signatories of the campaign -- called " [2]Stealing Isn't Innovation " -- include authors George Saunders and Jodi Picoult, actors Cate Blanchett and Scarlett Johansson, and musicians like the band R.E.M., Billy Corgan, and The Roots.
>
> "Driven by fierce competition for leadership in the new GenAI technology, profit-hungry technology companies, including those among the richest in the world as well as private equity-backed ventures, have copied a massive amount of creative content online without authorization or payment to those who created it," a press release reads. "This illegal intellectual property grab fosters an information ecosystem dominated by misinformation, deepfakes, and a vapid artificial avalanche of low-quality materials ['AI slop'], risking AI model collapse and directly threatening America's AI superiority and international competitiveness."
[1] https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/864951/human-artistry-campaign-ai-licensing-artists
[2] https://www.stealingisntinnovation.com/
Re: (Score:2)
The point on terms and the subversion of them stands, but I'd like to nitpick a bit - most of the process of conversion of copyright and other temporary monopolies to the "intellectual property" fiction and to extending it until forever isn't artists' doing, but the doing of their hungry lawyers.
Re: agreed (Score:2)
I don't think you understood what I wrote based on your reply. I said it was for corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
> Stealing isn't innovation, which is why we shouldn't respect the modern term of copyright. Its original limit's intent was to allow The People to have control of their cultural identity. Those terms have been extended again and again specifically to prevent that for the purpose of guaranteeing profit not for creators, but for corporations.
> The natural limitation on copying is no limit. Copyright was supposed to be a limited time thing, not for longer than the typical creator's lifetime. Copying is a natural right.
I'd like to see copyright go back to a reasonable time limit, like author's lifetime, or even less. But I really don't like the trend of folks decrying copyright as a concept at all right when it's convenient for the corporations who have traditionally supported extended copyright to abolish copyright outright so they have the right to outright steal all creative works from the moment of inception. Copyright of reasonable limits? Yes. Abolish it outright right now? Fuck no. Let those fucking tech companies
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for most writers and movie-makers is not people stealing their work but people finding their work. Copyright primarily exists to keep Disney and other big media companies in business.
And big business has mostly worked around it in recent decades by bribing politicians to keep extending the duration.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it clearly doesn't work does it?
If Disney takes my book and republishes it with their name instead of mine, that's fraud. If Disney takes my book, copies the plot and turns it into a movie, their lawyers will ensure they don't have to pay me for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd like to see copyright go back to a reasonable time limit, like author's lifetime, or even less."
Copyright in the US was originally 14 years, renewable once for another period of 14 years if the copyright holder was still alive.
learn how to own mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
No AI will make mistakes like real musicians or artists. People don't realize how important little mistakes and small errors are in performance. Figure this out and you will dominate over the AI with perfect takes but in totally unnatural way
nothing but bullshit but coming from the good guys (Score:2)
Training AI models isn't "stealing" or "theft", nor is that training claimed to be the "innovation".
Current intellectual property laws simply don't work, making dishonest claims about that law doesn't work either. We need new law, billionaires won't allow it except to protect their wealth and power.
Copyright Is A Privilege (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright Is A Privilege WE the people give to CREATORS to encourage CREATION, not to Megacorps to keep them in Ferraris.
The big copyright lobby steals from everyone, every day with their outrageous 95-year terms.
*They* should be the ones properly refunding the creatives they parasite off.
And we must force them to encourage creation instead of greed by replacing 95-year copyright with 5-year copyright.
99% of all commercial profit from copyrighted media is collected within 5 years.
Until then, PIRATE ON !
Training an LLM is.. (Score:1)
...exactly the same as training a human mind
All of science, engineering, art and music builds on what came before
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, because you can theoretically determine exactly which documents, songs or movies the LLM used to create its output. You can't do that for a human unless they're doing it intentionally and obviously.
Give me an AI trained only on the public domain (Score:1)
We can do a lot with an AI trained in pre-1923 literature, pre-1923 sheet music (especially classical and other pre-20th-century styles), etc.
"ChatGPT, give me music in the style of J. S. Bach, suitable for playing by a small ensemble consisting of ..."
Define "stealing" (Score:2, Insightful)
Most "creative" works nowadays are built upon years of influence from other existing work. What an LLM is doing isn't all that different really.
Re: (Score:1)
True! And not just that: one of the claims of AI advocates, like Mark Cuban, was that AI would take over all the drudgery and repetitive work that humans do, and the only thing humans will have to be is become more creative. Not only are most humans not creative: AI does a pretty good job of its own in the creative realm. I've watched quite a few AI videos, and was pretty impressed
Also, what if less talented humans use AI to create music? Will they get the same recognition as normal musicians, who use
Re: (Score:3)
"those old Blues masters they "lifted" from ...."
But they also contributed by changing and adding to said riffs.
So-called AI is not capable of adding to the gestalt, but can only derive from existing data. It can't create anything new.
Now if you as a person were to use AI as a basis to begin from and then add to, there is a possiblity of creation.
Re: (Score:1)
Posting A/C since I know I'll be pounded into oblivion for this. However, I used to pay people to draw stuff for an AD&D campaign run on Discord, as commissions. I'd get people flaking out, lying about what has been paid, given art that might be ok for a furry pr0n lover or scribbled in MSPaint. I suck at drawing, so that isn't an issue.
The fix? MidJourney, and other AI programs. Once I got approval from players to use AI, I was able to get the pictures/drawings about events, and they were more tha
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good use of AI.
You are not trying to sell what was "created". For your personal use it is a great tool. I use meta to do a similar thing. I "created" a unique monetary system and the coins to support it. I think of using AI like that as similar to the quick NPC generator at [1]https://www.fastcharacter.com/ [fastcharacter.com]
Trying to sell somthing created by AI leaves a multitude of issues. Do you/can you "OWN" something AI created ?
[1] https://www.fastcharacter.com/
Influence is inspiration (Score:2)
What AI for picture is a very complicated warping/stitching, but not inspiration. Inspiration you can get something nobody ever did before. See all the painting types for example, surrealism, cubism, etc... If you take all realistic/romantic painting of all the years until 1800 and feed an AI, you can let it run until the heat death of the universe , you will never get any cubist painting. It cannot make new stuff, it can only do a very complicated copy paste.