I don’t really see the difference between an AI being trained on “copyrighted” data and a human artist having a diverse and wide ranging set of influences that inspired their own creations. As long as you’re not making a 1:1 copy, what’s the problem? We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants as the saying goes; AI can just do it more effectively.
Automation makes the common worker both unreliable (relative to a computer) and not cost effective. Its been the death of massive swaths of jobs and careers over the last two-ish centuries, because technology doesn't stop. Its a rather large and complex web of philosophy, economics and the like that isn't super black/white on what's best.
But the problem is that the AI conversation right now is about automation coming for the arts, who considered themselves above and immune to such risks. Its why they said "learn to code" when it happened to miners, because they felt above such things.
So they are whining extra hard and trying to drag everybody into their fight, while they don't shed a tear for everyone else who got fucked by automation.
I worry less about that and more about the long term stifling of human creativity. As people incorporate AI into their own works, things start to become more derivative. The AI cannot generate anything new, it can only mimic what already exists within its training data. As humans use AI more and more, that training data available will come to contain less and less in the way genuine human ingenuity and will instead be AI outputs being used to train the next generation of AI in a slow and inexorably degradation of all forms of human creativity. It's not a readily apparent pitfall because it's on an extended timeline and half the population did have breakfast today, but it's something that's far more sinister than "this AI can draw better hentai commissions than I can because it copied me."
I don’t really see the difference between an AI being trained on “copyrighted” data and a human artist having a diverse and wide ranging set of influences that inspired their own creations. As long as you’re not making a 1:1 copy, what’s the problem? We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants as the saying goes; AI can just do it more effectively.
Its the same problem as always.
Automation makes the common worker both unreliable (relative to a computer) and not cost effective. Its been the death of massive swaths of jobs and careers over the last two-ish centuries, because technology doesn't stop. Its a rather large and complex web of philosophy, economics and the like that isn't super black/white on what's best.
But the problem is that the AI conversation right now is about automation coming for the arts, who considered themselves above and immune to such risks. Its why they said "learn to code" when it happened to miners, because they felt above such things.
So they are whining extra hard and trying to drag everybody into their fight, while they don't shed a tear for everyone else who got fucked by automation.
Amusingly, artists who did learn to code, at least enough to work their own AI art systems, are sitting pretty.
They've dumbed down 'the arts' so far that an AI can do it.
I worry less about that and more about the long term stifling of human creativity. As people incorporate AI into their own works, things start to become more derivative. The AI cannot generate anything new, it can only mimic what already exists within its training data. As humans use AI more and more, that training data available will come to contain less and less in the way genuine human ingenuity and will instead be AI outputs being used to train the next generation of AI in a slow and inexorably degradation of all forms of human creativity. It's not a readily apparent pitfall because it's on an extended timeline and half the population did have breakfast today, but it's something that's far more sinister than "this AI can draw better hentai commissions than I can because it copied me."