Technology

I agree that AI can decimate workforce. My point is, other tools did that already and this is not unique to AI. Imagine electronic chip design. Transistor was invented in 40s and it was a giant tube. Today we have chips with billions of transistors. Initially people were designing circuits on transistor level, then register transfer level languages got invented and added a layer of abstraction. Today we even have high level synthesis languages which converts C to a gatelist. And consider the backend, this gate list is routed into physical transistors in a way that timing is met, clocks are distributed in balance, signal and power integrity are preserved, heat is removed etc. Considering there are billions of transistors and no single unique way of connecting them, tool gets creative and comes with a solution among virtually infinite possibilities which satisfy your specification. You have to tell the tool what you need, and give some guidance occasionally, but what it does is incredible, creative, and wouldn't be possible if you gathered all engineers in the world and make them focus on a single complex chip without tools' help. So they have been taking engineers' jobs for decades, but what happened so far is that industry grew together with automation. If we reach the limits of demand, or physical limitations of technology, or people cannot adapt to the development of the tools fast enough by updating their job description and skillset, then decimation of the workforce happens. But this isn't unique to AI.

I am not against regulating AI, I am just saying what I think will happen. Offloading all work to AI and getting UBI would be nice, but I don't see that happening in near future.

Yeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn't steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn't work when you want to copyright stuff.

Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.

That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don't personally think that is analogous but it doesn't matter for this discussion.

The difference is a human artist can then make new unique art and contribute to the craft so it can advance and they can make a living off it. AI made art isn’t unique, it’s a collage of other art. To get art from AI you have to feed it prompts of things it’s seen before. So when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.

I'm pretty specifically trying to bring to mind the time it takes to hone the skill. Photography is similar in that it takes many many hours to get to the point where you can produce a good work of art.

If an artist (or photographer) spends a couple hours on a peice, that's not the actual amount of time needed. It takes years to reach the point where they can make art in a few hours. That's what people are upset about, that's why nobody cares about "it took me hours to generate a good peice!", because it takes an artist 10,000 hours.

What AI art is doing is distilling that 10,000 hours (per artist) into a training set of 99% stolen works to allow someone with zero skill to produce a work of art in a few hours.

What's most problematic isn't who the copyright of the AI generated age belongs to, it's that artists who own their own works are having it stolen to be used in a commercial product. Go to any AI image generator, and you'll see "premium" options you can pay for. That product, that option to pay, only exists on the backs of artists who did not give licensing for their works, and did not get paid to provide the training data.

The law is about human expression, not human work. That which a human expressed (with creative height) is protected, all else is not

This isnt always the case. Tattoos for example, are commissioned and paid for but the actual copyright often resides with the artist not the person that paid for the work.

That's only with the artist's agreement though isn't it? Usually because you're paying them. In this case the artist isn't a person so can't grant you the copyright (I think)

Then absolutely go ahead. That isn't what the guy in the post did tough.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to keep copyright then. Everything involved would have been owned by you.

That is a big difference to how other generative models work though, which do use other people's work.

The difference is it's not you making the art.

The photographer is the one making the photo, it is their skill in doing ehat I described above that directly makes the photo. Whereas your prompts, tweaking, etc. are instructions for an AI to make the scenery for you based on other people's artwork.

I actually have a better analogy for you...

If I trained a monkey to take photos, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting photo are, I don't own those photos, the monkey does. Though in actuality, the work goes to the public domain in lieu as non-human animals cannot claim copyright.

If you edit that monkey's photo, you own the edit, but you still don't own the photo because the monkey took it.

The same should, does currently seem to, apply to AI. It is especially true when that AI is trained on information you don't hold copyright or licensing for.