AI Created Image won TWAB AOTW (Destiny)

by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, February 07, 2023, 22:44 (657 days ago) @ EffortlessFury
edited by Cody Miller, Tuesday, February 07, 2023, 22:48

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The reason why it has always been okay is that A. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort to practice and apply that learning and B. Most people inherently develop a style that is unique to themselves. These two facts need to be taken in conjunction with one another. An algorithm completing this process in a fraction of a fraction of the time a human can, while being able to reasonably replicate the styles presented to it, is not the same outcome as before.

Someone could spend their life going through this process and developing their own style, which AI could now replicate with little to no effort.

Isn't this what Amadeus is about? Dude is jealous Mozart can crank out in an afternoon what he worked years for. So you'd blame Mozart and tell him to not be such a genius?

A human learning from that person's art style cannot conceivably replace them in the marketplace in short order, and it is still not likely to be similar enough that the original artist would be replaceable. Now, that is a much more possible.

Artists don't have any legal protection for their 'style'. Your style cannot be copyrighted - only specific expressions - basically individual drawings or character designs.

Look at AI being used to reproduce people's voices. It is the exact same process and result for audible content as this is for visual content. Would you also say that by putting their voice out into the world, training AI on it is justified (whether on their speaking voice or a character voice they perform)?

Yes. An impersonator or impressionist is free to listen to you and learn your speech to imitate. So… why not AI? Exactly the same principle.

All of this resides in a very blurry region of plagiarism, IMO. The human brain is a filter for the content they consume in the process of training their brain, which creates variety and does so over a long period of time (which is a limited resource that each of us has to spend).

As far as I know, the AIs generate completely new works with prompts. They do not copy and exactly replicate specific parts of artist's published work.

One time, someone argued to me that, simply because they existed, they had a right (and almost a responsibility) to take whatever they could from the world (and its resources). Even if that meant making the future less sustainable for others, it was still right and fair for them to do so, even if their present existence depended on others not having behaved that way in the past. Is the response to that attitude to say, "well, we should just get used to people trying to take everything they can," or do we fix the loopholes in society that allow people to take far more than what is fair (to the point that others suffer)?

Technological progress comes, whether we like it or not, but that doesn't mean we should abandon any attempt at ethics.

I just don't see any of the arguments against this as having sound ethical value. It's basically "I want to keep making money doing what I do", or "I want what I do to be considered special so I can get prestige". Neither of which I find compelling enough to halt progress on this.