So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it change anything?”

Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren’t public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

  • Badland9085@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not sure why artists are brought up here but I guess that’s one of the highly affected groups.

    Just to talk about that particular consequence, however, I don’t agree with your take. There are AI trained on works of specific artists, and the end result is that the AI is really good at producing work that’s similar to that artist’s work, effectively creating an alternative to that artist, even if it’s of slightly lesser quality and a lack of depth of the original. While this would likely not affect the artist in the short term, in the long term, new prospects who don’t yet know the artist well enough would likely be unable to tell the difference in quality, and may even go straight to the AI model since that’s distributed cheaply or even free. It may also negatively reflect on the original artist to people who don’t know the artist, as the works from the AI would likely be more abundant, and people not in the know may think that the original artist was in fact just producing their works through AI. It is highly discouraging for artists who have worked hard to hone their craft, only to have people think that their works have little difference or even a mimicry (don’t underestimate misinformation).

    There has been many instances where such training was done without the knowledge of the artist. Imagine just waking up one day, and finding that there’s someone or something that can very closely reproduce your works, one’s you’ve taken many years of practice to produce, of which its quality is almost unique to yourself. There’s a blatant lack of respect for the hard work that people put into their craft, one that seemingly belittles their blood and tears, and could even be a mockery of their existence. Some artists don’t have other jobs; their art and craft is their job, and some may have even sacrificed learning the skills needed for other jobs to pursue their passion.

    Saying that AI is not intended to replace artists, but to improve accessibility, is like saying ATMs weren’t meant to replace bank tellers. True, there’s much less skill required for bank tellers, and getting cash out of banks is an important process that should be swift with almost no errors, so replacing bank tellers with ATMs is a general good, except for the bank tellers, which then banks can retrain them for other jobs. Since then, the job has virtually gone extinct, and almost nobody would want to become a bank teller, and if anyone would like to, they would need to perform better than ATMs. Artists require great skills and creativity, many of which are not easily trained or obtained. Seeing an automated system produce works that are acceptable by most people would either greatly discourage new artists or perhaps even entirely remove the idea of becoming an artist for most people. It raises the barrier to becoming an artist: not only do you need to stand out, you also need to be good enough such that people can’t just train an AI model on your work to produce results that are highly indistinguishable from yours. How many more years do people need to train to be that good? For those with a job but wish to become an artist, abandoning their job to focus on their craft will likely become a much more difficult choice to make. Also, I don’t doubt this would further rise the prices of commissions due to how much work artists would have to put in, and this would only get worse at a rate that’s much faster than a scenario without AI.

    So a line should be drawn somewhere. AI trained on public works or artist-approved works are definitely okay. All other options will likely need further discussion and scrutiny. We’re talking about the possibility of ruining an already perilous career path, whose works are coveted.

    • Victoria@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even paradoxically, AI needs ever improving artists to generate new training data and improve itself. You can’t really train an AI on AI-generated works. (see: AI collapse)

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess it’s a good thing they are not going anyhere despite a loud minority shouting the opposite.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      > Not sure why artists are brought up here

      It was brought up in the original post.

      > <…> may even go straight to the AI model since that’s distributed cheaply or even free.

      Isn’t that part of the capitalism artists love so much? People will go with the cheapest option that meet their criteria. So that just validates my point where someone who wouldn’t have hired an artist now has an option, while those that prefer better quality will still hire artists.

      > It is highly discouraging for artists who have worked hard to hone their craft, only to have people think that their works have little difference or even a mimicry (don’t underestimate misinformation).

      Easily disprovable and while I can understand the concern it’s just another medium affected by general polarization. Again AI is just shining a light on the issue not creating it.

      > There has been many instances where such training was done without the knowledge of the artist.

      And that is the legal question that wasn’t answered yet. But the cat is out of the bag. The models are alreday trained and a lot of them are open source so there is no possible way to remove them. Interested groups should have lobbied for laws to protect from it 5-8 years ago when the tech was starting to develop. But people ignore issues until it affects them directly.

      > Imagine just waking up one day, and finding that there’s someone or something that can very closely reproduce your works, one’s you’ve taken many years of practice to produce, of which its quality is almost unique to yourself.

      Isn’t that how artists learn by making copies of someone else’s work?

      > Saying that AI is not intended to replace artists, but to improve accessibility, is like saying ATMs weren’t meant to replace bank tellers.

      Apples vs oranges. One is creative process while other is not. Going to 10 different artists will get me 10 different results while going to 10 bank tellers will get me the same result every time.