LAwLzaWU1A t1_j5p7pc7 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 4:41 PM

Reply to comment by natepriv22 in CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism by iingot

Making it illegal to use pictures for learning, even if publicly available, is exactly what the lawsuits are about, and a huge portion of people (mainly artists who have had their art used for learning) support this idea.

It's in my opinion very stupid, but that's what a lot of people are asking for without even realizing the consequences if such a system was put in place (not that it can be to begin with).

Fafniiiir t1_j5wxvop wrote on January 26, 2023 at 3:08 AM

This isn't really true at all, artists don't have a problem with art being used to teach ai so long as it's consensual and artists get compensated for it.

LAwLzaWU1A t1_j5xtymw wrote on January 26, 2023 at 8:30 AM

And the consequence of that is that Disney could say that artists who used Disney works to learn how to draw without consent owe them royalties. I don't think that is what is going to happen, but logically that is the implication.

If you go through some of the lawsuits being done regarding AI you will see that what they are arguing is not exclusive to AI art tools. For example, the lawsuit from Getty seems to just states that it should be considered illegal to "use the intellectual property of others - absent permission or consideration - to build a commercial offering of their own financial benefit".

That wording applies to human artists as well, not just AI. Did you use someone else's intellectual property to build a financial offering, such as artists on fiverr advertising that they will "draw X in the style of Disney"? Then you might be affected by the outcome of this lawsuit, even if you don't use AI art tools. Hell, does your drawings draw inspiration from Disney? Then you have most likely used Disney as "training data" for your own craft as well and it could therefore be argued that these rulings apply to you as well.

I understand that artists are mainly focused on AI tools, but since an AI tool in many ways functions like a human (see publicly available data and learns from it), these lawsuits could affect human artists too.

And like I said earlier, the small artists who are worried that big companies might use AI tools instead of recruiting them are completely missing the mark with these lawsuits, because the big companies will be able to afford to buy and train on their own datasets. Disney have no problem getting the legal right to train their future AI on whichever data they want. These lawsuits will only harm individuals and small companies by making it harder for them to match the AI capabilities of big companies.

It is my firm belief that these tools have to be as open and free to use by anyone as possible, in order to ensure that massive companies don't get an even bigger advantage over everyone else. At the end of the day, the big companies currently suing companies like StabilityAI are doing so for their own personal gains. Getty images don't want people to be able to generate their own "stock images" because that's their entire business. Disney doesn't want the average Joe to be able to recreate their characters and movies with ease. They want to keep that ability to themselves.