this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1240 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

60084 readers
4914 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TwilightVulpine 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

OpenAI is definitely not the one arguing that they have stole data to train their AIs, and Disney will be fine whether AI requires owning the rights to training materials or not. Small artists, the ones protesting the most against it, will not. They are already seeing jobs and commission opportunities declining due to it.

Being publicly available in some form is not a permission to use and reproduce those works however you feel like. Only the real owner have the right to decide. We on the internet have always been a bit blasé about it, sometimes deservedly, but as we get to a point we are driving away the very same artists that we enjoy and get inspired by, maybe we should be a bit more understanding about their position.

[–] Grimy -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Thats basically my main point, Disney doesn't need the data, Getty either. AI isn't going away and the jobs will be lost no matter what.

Putting a price tag in the high millions for any kind of generative model only benefits the big players.

I feel for the artists. It was already a very competitive domain that didn't really pay well and it's now much worse but if they aren't a household name, they aren't getting a dime out of any new laws.

I'm not ready to give the economy to Microsoft, Google, Getty and Adobe so GRRM can get a fat payday.

[–] TwilightVulpine 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If AI companies lose, small artists may have the recourse of seeking compensation for the use and imitation of their art too. Just feeling for them is not enough if they are going to be left to the wolves.

There isn't a scenario here in which big media companies lose so talking of it like it's taking a stand against them doesn't make much sense. What are we fighting for here? That we get to generate pictures of Goofy? The small AI user's win here seems like such a silly novelty that I can't see how it justifies just taking for granted that artists will have it much rougher than they already have.

The reality here is that even if AI gets the free pass, large media and tech companies are still primed to profit from them far more than any small user. They will be the one making AI-assisted movies and integrating chat AI into their systems. They don't lose in either situation.

There are ways to train AI without relying on unauthorized copyrighted data. Even if OpenAI loses, it wouldn't be the death of the technology. It may be more efficient and effective to train them with that data, but why is "efficiency" enough to justify this overreach?

And is it even wise to be so callous about it? Because it's not going to stop with artists. This technology has the potential to replace large swaths of service industries. If we don't think of the human costs now, it will be even harder to make a case for everyone else.

[–] Grimy -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I fully believe AI will be able to replace 50% or more of desk jobs in the near future. It's definitely a complicated situation and you make good points.

First and foremost, I think it's imperative the barrier for entry for model training is as low as possible. Anything else basically gives a select few companies the ability to charge a huge subscription fee on all our goods and services.

The data needed is pretty heavy as well, it's not very pheasible to go off of donated or public domain data.

I also think any job loss is virtually guaranteed and trying to save them is misguided as well as not really benefiting most of those affected.

And yea, the big companies win either way but if it's easier to use this new tech, we might not lose as hard. Disney for instance doesn't have any competition but if a bunch of indie animation companies and groups start popping up, it levels the playing field a bit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

In many discussions I've seen, small or independent creators are one of the focuses of loss and protection.

Also there's the acknowledgement that existing jobs will be reduced, eliminated, or transformed.

How much different is this from the mass elimination of the 50s stereotype secretaries? We used to have rooms full of workers typing memos, then we got computers, copiers, etc.

I know there's a difference between a creator's work vs a job/task. I'm more curious if these same conversations came up when the office technological advances put those people out? You could find a ton more examples where advancement or efficiency gains reduced employment.

Should technology advancement be tied to not eliminating jobs or taking away from people's claim to work?

I know there's more complexity like greed and profits here.