If you look into this decision, it’s more that China is worried about deepfakes, which is a very real concern.
In recent years, deep synthesis technology has developed rapidly. While serving user needs and improving user experience, it has also been used by some unscrupulous people to produce, copy, publish, and disseminate illegal and harmful information, to slander and belittle others’ reputation and honor, and to counterfeit others’ identities. Committing fraud, etc., affects the order of communication and social order, damages the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and endangers national security and social stability.
This is likely easy to enforce at the model level, if you have a model that generates lifelike impressions of real people. Enforcing it per image would be impossible I think.
But there are people celebrating this like it’s some luddite attempt of China to hold back technological progress for the narrow aim of protecting IP. Any “communist” that is disposed this way, read the quote above a few more times. When the sewing machine was invented, did we hold back the sewing machine so that more tailors could keep their jobs? Why should it be any different for “artists”? Is the solution to alienation turning back society to the dark age? Or is there already a theory of revolutionary change that venerates the acceleration of revolutions in the forces of production? If you hate AI art you are a reactionary.
Property is a spook. Post scarcity is here. We have to adapt our economic system to the new reality.
Shakespeare didn’t invent Romeo and Juliet you know? Back in the day artists didn’t have a concept of IP. People would just freely rip off and adapt one another.
Why? IP is a bankrupt concept. Instead of protecting IP on behalf of artists, we should abolish IP for AI companies. Enforce open sourcing of AI models that use other people’s data, nationalize big tech, so on
If you look into this decision, it’s more that China is worried about deepfakes, which is a very real concern.
This is likely easy to enforce at the model level, if you have a model that generates lifelike impressions of real people. Enforcing it per image would be impossible I think.
But there are people celebrating this like it’s some luddite attempt of China to hold back technological progress for the narrow aim of protecting IP. Any “communist” that is disposed this way, read the quote above a few more times. When the sewing machine was invented, did we hold back the sewing machine so that more tailors could keep their jobs? Why should it be any different for “artists”? Is the solution to alienation turning back society to the dark age? Or is there already a theory of revolutionary change that venerates the acceleration of revolutions in the forces of production? If you hate AI art you are a reactionary.
I don’t hate AI art as long as companies developing it using works publishes by artists do it with the authors’ consent and paying them
Property is a spook. Post scarcity is here. We have to adapt our economic system to the new reality.
Shakespeare didn’t invent Romeo and Juliet you know? Back in the day artists didn’t have a concept of IP. People would just freely rip off and adapt one another.
Why? IP is a bankrupt concept. Instead of protecting IP on behalf of artists, we should abolish IP for AI companies. Enforce open sourcing of AI models that use other people’s data, nationalize big tech, so on