So was it trained on his work without his approval?
Seems this is legal now. Keep this in mind, when the next video game decompilation project comes along because that’s also machine-generated material based on copyrighted released media. That must be equally as legal now.
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
Hopefully. It makes cool pictures.
I said without, I wouldn’t believe they got his approval…
Shouldn’t’t need it. Instead I say the push should be that any AI trained on public resources must remain public and any derivative of that model also must remain publicly available.
Yes I agree. But copyrighted material isn’t a public resource.
I don’t care about copyrights. I care about content.
Every paid artist could disappear. Content will still be created. Probably better content and products then anything created under any copyright and IP as is now.
Well, that’s one take I guess… Not a good one, but one none the less…
If we didn’t have copyright then people wouldn’t be able to justify putting effort into creating content because they wouldn’t be guaranteed financial compensation for the time and effort they put in.
Everything costs money, If I’m writing a novel I still have to pay the bills I still have to buy groceries I still have to pay for water and electricity I need to be compensated for my time.
I have needs and wants as well. I hope you get paid well. But when you stand in the path of something I think to be progress then we conflict.
Miyazaki is my favorite angry old man.
Life is hard when you dreamed of being a chèf but got popular with animation.
Yeah it sucks for him to have ended up creating works beloved by hundreds of millions and touched and changed lives
he could have made some steaks and shit but oh well
Relatable. I’ll never achieve my dreams either.
The funny thing is OpenAI’s image generator didn’t really do a good job with making a Ghibli stylized version of Altman.
That being said, there will be a downstream impact on media quality if there is no novel approach to balancing creative work and AI slop generators. Don’t think there is a simple answer.
Replacing amazing creative humans with bland AI generated content is not a good use of AI.
Ironic since the decrease of human made work (art or software) will decrease the quality or diversity of generative AI itself
Which the shareholders couldn’t freaking care less. They only need to get super rich in their lifetime.
In theory they get super rich, but in practice the early adopters of AI seem to be hemoraging money as a result of it. It doesn’t actually make the bare minimun content so they end up hiring humans to fix their bullshit and the end product is worse than just using humans.
deleted by creator
Artist will no longer exist as a species
Mostly true, but…
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn’t meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn’t be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can’t think of them right now.
And despite all of its other problems, it’s still not even profitable.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard. The future looks more and more bleak.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t absolutely require job for my life. I do require nutrients and shelter though…
Uh huh, so your going to grow and hunt your own nutrients then I guess? Build your own shelter?
I guess you could do all that if you had the money to buy the required land for it, but then again if you had that kind of money you didn’t need a job in the first place.
Zoom out man. They were being sardonic.
Do you really not see the difference between food/shelter, things that you WILL die without, and employment?
The only reason you need the latter for the former (and I mean, no you don’t but whatever) is because of how society is set up.
Your body doesn’t shut down if you don’t clock in to your job for X days.
Well it kind of does because if I don’t have a job then I don’t get money, And I need that to buy things like food and shelter. And yes that’s because of the way society is set up but since it’s the way every single society on Earth is set up, I think we have a problem.
There has never been a culture on Earth at any point in history that didn’t have some version of money.
All these job people are just barking up the wrong tree. Oh no my 9-5 is gone instead of oh wow now we collectively have less work load and should focus on resource redistribution.
Hopefully Soylent Green comes fast to save us.
The bigger problem here is the loss of jobs and we are talking about a huge loss of employment that will affect economies really hard.
I would say that’s a tangential problem. Because, you know, in theory…
But the deeper problem is ultimately in expertise as a learned skill developed over time and through practice. If you’re de-skilling work, you’re dismantling the tools by which we train the next generation of artists and production crews. If we were just replacing humans with machines for some route manual labor (like Pixar replaced Disney’s old hand drawn animations with a newer CGI look), the result would be a new style and perhaps less tendentious from route reproductions.
But we’re gutting the whole process of development which means you’re losing the pool of skilled professionals who know how to create CGI (or even flip-book style 60s animation) from first principles. That means sacrificing whole fields of specialized expertise for… what? This?
“A real labor of love”
Christ. It’s like people cosplaying as real artists.
That will only happen if a society completely is reorganized to get rid of money or if they introduce universal basic income (at a rate that actually allows people to live).
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Or, more broadly, when individuals are recognized as valued participants in the community rather than obsolete expenses to try and scratch off the books.
Realistically I can’t see either of those things happening.
Not under current business and political leadership, no. But with a strong union movement leading a next generation of working class people… maybe.
What about the transition.
Because this will take time to happen, and the thing about not eating because you have literally no money, is it’s a rather immediate concern. You can’t just wait a decade or so for everyone to sort it out.
I think it’s intentional. Where you had to think to do something, you’d inevitably learn to think. Where you had to put soul and wisdom and aesthetic feeling into your work, you’d inevitably touch those things for other parts of your life.
There are people higher in the society, who think lower castes shouldn’t have that and will be fine with knowledge and expertise just sufficient to do their jobs.
They wouldn’t be so hellbent on this particular technology, if they didn’t see how relatively recent progress changed that curve of expertise for radio, electric engineering, all engineering, computer science, automobiles, home appliances, and what not. So they see this consistently works for 25+ years.
So they work to deprive us of practice that allows to do more in all those directions. There’s a moat that could as well be an abyss between what we know and what we’d need to know to make relevant things. That moat wasn’t there 25 years ago. The path from a novice computer user to someone knowing all DOS interrupts and what DMA and IRQ are was less than the path from a novice computer user today to making a simple GUI application.
(I’ve got executive dysfunction, so feel these things more, but I’m certain they are true.)
Reminds me of how millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks. The quality of products have decreased too so they break quicker which gives people incentive to buy a new one instead of fixing.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
We are not only losing skills and tactile learning and understanding, we are also rapidly torpedoing out planet into a massive trash heap. Which is a bit of a duh, I know, but still.
I for one have noticed the insane decline in the quality of clothes after covid. It is shockingly shitty now and tears faster than ever. Shirts and leggings I bought ten years ago still hold up while similar shirts and leggings from a few years ago already tear or unravel. It is shocking. I guess this is what will eventually happen to art too.
millennials and generations onward have learned less and less maintainence skills to the point where most of us can’t sow or fix shit if it’s broken because we grew up in a consumer culture where you just buy a new one when the old one breaks
Planned Obselecence means a lot of modern consumer goods are deliberately designed to be difficult to repair.
More cheap plastic used for buckles and clasps. More glue used in place of screws or latches. More electronics soddered or otherwise made irreplaceable/inaccessible to an amateur. Shoes, in particular, leap to mind. Shoe repair used to be a standard dry cleaning service. It’s practically extinct today. Very few good ways to repair a modem sneaker.
My parents generation hold on to old items and they patch up their clothes and know how to fix shit around the house but they didn’t teach me any of that because the culture shifted and it wasn’t really needed.
There’s a time cost to repair and maintenance that’s often frustrating. I don’t blame folks for opting towards convenience. But I feel horrible every time I take out the trash, knowing how much plastic waste I accrue every month.
Not an AI problem though. Perhaps AI will help some people understand that there are some big ass problems in our society.
With big asses being one of them. Obesity and it’s complications are getting out of control. I’m in favor of free glp-1 clinics and then free antidote clinics for whatever terrible blight the free glp-1 clinics unleash upon us in 5-10 years.
I’ve never read or enjoyed any AI works so far, tbh.
Say what you will about the soulessnes of AI imagery (I find it very dissapointing), but this new technology is going to take our jobs argument is incredibly tired boomer-speak that shows a lack of understanding of history and a lack of imagination.
As a tool, it should be highly useful to artists to help them create things. However, the fact that these algorithms (I don’t care to call them AI because they aren’t) are stealing people’s work and then shitting out mediocre garbage and the people in the creative industry who tend to finance such things start thinking that “these machines can just do what an artist can so why pay for an artist” is the problem.
What if it allows other creative people to create newer works rather than these few people. Could spell a new Renaissance of creativity that didn’t exist before. Lots of people have great stories to tell but lacked artistic ability or resources.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
One of my favorite things is when people mash up two popular songs and shared it on Napster. Can’t get anywhere close to that today without risking account bans on most sites. I say open the flood gates.
Eh? Of course you could.
You think you could?
I think the minute it gets popular the lawyers start getting paid
See this is the (well, one major) problem with copyright.
Imaginary property for me (“AI” goons), not for thee (actual artists).
Unfathomably based
I thought it was John dunsworth
Next you’re going to tell me using someones artstyle to depict someone getting deported is not appropriate for the white house twitter
While I agree that it’s not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
There’d be no need for drug dealers if drugs were decriminalized, like in other progressive Nations.
Yeah lemme go to my local fentanyl shop. Because she trafficked fentanyl.
And? Plenty of countries where that’s not an issue, or at worse she’d get either a fine or medical counseling on addiction for a couple days https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-have-decriminalized-drugs.html
Which of those countries have decriminalized Fentanyl? I bet it’s none of them.
Weed is fine, obviously.
What part of literally all drugs did you not get from the list at the bottom mentioning places like Portugal and Croatia?
Well shit, I stand corrected!
Lol forgot they call weed drug
forgot they call weed drug
Clearly you didn’t, because weed is completely unrelated to this story. You saw the word ‘drug’ and assumed it must mean ‘marijuana’.Edit: You know what, this response was pretty dickish. Sorry. Ignore the above.
Thanks appreciate your edit, i was speaking in general that they can call someone selling weed as drug dealer and kick them out of the country. So the word drug dealer in the US by itself doesn’t mean the person is gang member or horrible person.
Regardless thanks again for the edit! Have a good day…
You got a link for that? I’m not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs
My bad, the illustration was supposed to be of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, who has been accused of trafficking fentanyl. On the one hand, it seems encouraging that they had to find someone who could more credibly be presented as criminal – hopefully an indication that their claims about the pro-Palestinian students and Argentinians with tattoos they’ve disappeared were not deemed credible enough by the general public.
Still, we only have the allegation of this administration against this person, so it’s quite possible she’s entirely innocent. It’s not like they give a fuck about actual crimes or making our country safer. They just want to be seen as badasses.
No, Ozturk is suspected for supporting Hammas - maybe he’s selling Fentanyl for Hammas? 😂 But if that’s true, out she goes. If it’s not, I hope she can sue their asses for defamation and whatever else can stick.
Suh-NAP!
An insult to life is working 12h a day japanese style for the industry. I’m aware that they do things differently at studio ghibli but at the end of the day they are a for profit company making billions like the rest. Labeling AI as an insult to life sound like much bigotism.
Tell me you’ve never seen a Studio Ghibli movie without telling me you’ve never seen a single Studio Ghibli movie. Literally every one of them contains some “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message. If AI were personified in one of their movies, it’d be a oozing black oil demon monstrosity spitting soot into the air.
It’d be like Banksy doing advertisement for Nestle. It’s just so contrary to the message they put out.
Where’s the “advancing technology isn’t necessarily a good thing and the old ways have value” message in Kiki’s Delivery Service?
A magical person delivering mail instead of a soulless automated machine? The value of human experience and interactions? I didn’t say it was the core message, I said it was a message in all his movies. A “theme” or “motif”, if you will.
Why not both?
Bigoted against what?? A machine? The money grubbing assholes who are using those machines to profit on other people’s work without giving them a dime in compensation? Who the hell are you defending here?
Studio Ghibli and their artists put in millions of hours collectively to create works if absolute art. Sam Altman just borrowed millions of dollars to rip them off.
Bigoted against a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
If you throw AI at your hand draw 20 frames per second you are going to get the smoothest film ever and that’s just a stupid example. You can use AI for a thousand things already from the story boards to your final work.
a tool that is going to change the industry and digital art, the same way computers did back in the day.
This type of comparison makes no sense: with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t. You just ask the mighty machine what you want and it’ll spit processed garbage heavily approximating what you asked for. You could try fixing the output yourself, but at that point it’s no longer just AI, it becomes a mix of digital art and AI “art” with all the other problems the latter carries with it such as copyright, constant output reprocessing and especially energy consumption as making one crappy looking output takes way too much power for it to be viable in the long term.
with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn’t?
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the “romantic” part is essential because that’s what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn’t just about making something “pretty”, that’s something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don’t understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn’t carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there’s no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
Yes, only one thing can be an “insult to life”. GOOD point.
While AI is boosting productivity and is amazing, it also appeals to our worst inner instincts of giving in to authority and outsourcing and taking credit for others’ work.
Edit: I didn’t think this needs to be spelled out but here we go…
AI productivity increase: it can help automate mundane, repetitive tasks that require little skill, but lot of time. It can help proofread texts and point out issues in your writing, or help reduce the reading level needed for your text.
AI making people give in to authority: people thinking the “AI” knows better and surrender their critical thinking to AI suggestions when it’s giving bad advice, makes false calculations et.
People outsourcing to AI: not acquiring the drawing skills, or writing skills and letting AI hallucinate into your data/writing.
Taking credit for other’s work: I think it’s trivial and AI generated “art” is the prime example, but can extend to scientific writing, etc.
Initially I thought Asimov was so naive about AI/Robots and their risks, but he was pretty much spot on. It’s not the tech it’s the humans using it that is the problem.
Nah AI is just garbo in general. Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
Nah. Humans are “garbo” in general.
