Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey are suing OpenAI and Meta over violation of their copyrighted books. The trio says their works were pulled from illegal “shadow libraries” without their consent.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Artists should get paid extra for AIs being trained on their stuff. Doing it for free is our job.

      • BrooklynMan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        in design school, I had to pay for the books I bought which contained the images of the art. whomever owns those images got paid for the license to appear in the book. when I go to museums, I had to pay (by admission price or by the tax dollars that go into paying for the museum’s endowment), and that pays for the paintings/sculptures/etc.

        whenever I saw or see art, in one context or another, there’s some compensatory arrangement (or it’s being/has been donated— in which case, it’s tax-deductible).

        edit: then again, my work is not a remixed amalgam of all of the prior art I consumed— unlike AI, I am capable of creating new unique works which do not contain any of the elements of original works I may be seen or learned from previously. I am able to deconstruct, analyze, and implement nuanced constructs such as style, method, technique, and tone and also develop my own in the creation of an original work without relying on the assimilation and reuse of other original works in part or whole. AI cannot.

        for this reason I find this a flawed premise— comparing what an artist does to what LLMs or AI do is logically flawed because they aren’t the same thing. LLMs can only ever create derivative works, whereas human artists are capable of creating truly original works.

        • Quokka@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In all those instances you paid for the physical resources.

          These AI are just automating remix culture.

          Human creations should be free for all of us to use where possible (e.g. material costs for say a book).

          • BrooklynMan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In all those instances you paid for the physical resources.

            not only the physical resources but also the licensing fees for the images and the labor required to research and assemble the books. none of that was free, either. some of those design texts were hundreds of dollars-- and, no, I’m not referring to your bullshit college textbooks that have meaningless markups.

            while I agree with the philosophy that all human knowledge should be free and that we should all have free access to art and media and whatever, I’m simply explaining that I did, in fact, as an art/design student studying art/design pay for the material I learned from, including the art to which I was exposed (or there was some other form of compensation involved). i am not arguing whether or not that should or should not be the case.

            i also made a clear distinction between what a human artist is capable of achieving and what an ai is capable of achieving. perhaps I should have continued to state that it for this season that I believe artists should be compensated when AIs train using their works/data due to the difference between how they use it and how a human artist uses it when creating original works vs ai-generated pieces.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except you didn’t pay for generations of art culture endemic to human nature that took us from cave paintings to lying buttresses to modern design

              • BrooklynMan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                that’s an abstract concept, not a quantifiable object, product, or service that can be measured in terms of monetary value. if you move the goal posts any further, you might as well suggest I pay for having a soul, lol.

        • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Everything is a remix. Including all the work you’ve ever done. And everything I’ve ever done. Nothing is wholly original.

            • iegod@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. This fundamentally misrepresents the ai models.

              • BURN@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                No it doesn’t.

                AI doesn’t generate anything new. It uses mathematical models to rearrange and regurgitate what it’s already been given. There’s no creation, there’s nothing original. It’s simply stats.

                  • BURN@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Original interpretation and human input. There’s neither with AI. AI does not create anything. Period. Full stop. No question about it. It’s an objective fact that it doesn’t create anything new.

                  • BURN@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It is

                    Neural Networks and by extension LLMs are simply statistical models reorganizing training data based on statistical probability. It’s not creating anything new, it’s taking the inputs and more or less “translating” it.

        • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unworkable copyright maximalist take that wouldn’t help artists but would further entrench corporate IP holders.

            • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What, explain why “artists should pay artists that they study” is an unworkable copyright maximalist take? No, that’s self evident. How it won’t actually help artists, but would further entrench the corporate IP hoarders? No, I won’t do that either. It’s self evident. If your position is literally that artists should pay the artists that inspire them and that they study, you’re a deeply unserious person whose position doesn’t deserve to be seriously debated.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I find that a little bit of a specious argument actually. An LLM is not a person, it is itself a commercial derivative. Because it is created for profit and capable of outproducing any human by many orders of magnitude, I think comparing it to human training is a little simplistic and deceptive.

    • d3Xt3r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But there’s no evidence, in this case anyway, that it was trained using the entire book(s). Multiple summaries of the author’s works are available on various sites in the public domain, and GPT is capable of amalgamating all of them and summarizing it.

      Now if you asked it to reproduce an entire book, or say some random non-free chapter or excerpt exactly word-by-word, that would be a issue, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that it was able to do so.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’ll come out during the case. I assume they have evidence, otherwise suing would be a waste of time. Unless some lawyer is taking them for a ride.

        You only do need 51% certainty to win in civil court, though, so maybe they think they can just argue it? Still though, I’d want some sound evidence before going to court. Unless it’s just a slapp-style suit, but that doesn’t really fit.