Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:32:37 JST Alex Gleason
   ChatGPT, Dall-E 2, Midjourney - all proprietary software, BUT all copyright for anything it produces is assigned to you. This is a superpower, and probably the best opportunity Free Culture has ever had. Generate a bunch of useful graphics and CC license it, or public domain. There is a huge freedom prospect even though the code is proprietary.
   • Seahorses are horses likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:33:36 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to
     Note that this isn't necessarily the case for all AI products. I specifically reviewed the Terms of Service for those 3.
     Seahorses are horses likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Marakus (marakus@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:37:30 JST Marakus

     in reply to
     @alex Pretty sure mirican judges said that no one owns content generated by AI, since its generated from other people work.
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:37:30 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Marakus
     @Marakus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY&t=35s
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:41:04 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     @joshix That's the same for a human being creating "original works".
     Fediverse Contractor likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Joshix (joshix@fosspri.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:41:06 JST Joshix

     in reply to

     @alex they don't have any rights on the training data. They just stole it from random places on the internet.

   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:45:32 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     @joshix In my experience none of these AI services infringe on copyright. They does not produce derivative works, they produce original works inspired by the vast library of training data.
     
     They DO potentially infringe trademarks (depending on how you use the resulting images, of course). Like, you can get an AI to draw you a picture of Mario. But it would not be based on any previously existing Mario picture, it would be an all new image of Mario. This is similar to fan art.
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:51:34 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     @joshix And what do you think our brain does when we create something new?
   • Embed this notice
     Joshix (joshix@fosspri.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:51:36 JST Joshix

     in reply to

     @alex nope, that's not how it works.
     The models get trained with data (images + text).
     Then when you feed it data it uses a compressed form of the input data and the prompt to generate an image. There is nothing intelligent about that process. There is nothing really new created.

     Of course the images have probably never existed before. But you didn't produce something new if you just merge existing images.

   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:55:09 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     @joshix The only way your point of view makes sense is if you believe humans have a soul.
   • Embed this notice
     Joshix (joshix@fosspri.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 02:55:10 JST Joshix

     in reply to

     @alex we think. We have intelligence. We have emotions. We experience the world. We get much more input.

   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 03:02:25 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     @joshix For the prompt "edible diamond", you can't tell me this isn't creative. I'm not sure whether the task of being creative just isn't as special or hard as we thought, or if the AI is just advanced enough to be creative. But the outcome from AI is at least equal to what a creative human can do, and far more consistent.
     Fediverse Contractor and Seahorses are horses like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Joshix (joshix@fosspri.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 03:02:27 JST Joshix

     in reply to

     @alex Why? Our brains are far more complex than simple "AI".

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 03:38:17 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Joshix
     Right, If I look at someone's work and it influences the design of my own work am I a criminal too?
     
     When you can hear the direct influence bands had on an artist through their own music are they morally corrupt?
     
     Nobody would have said so a couple years ago 🤷
     Alex Gleason likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Curtis Rock, SkD (curtis@social.teci.world)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 05:09:53 JST Curtis Rock, SkD

     in reply to

     • feld
     • Joshix

     @feld @alex @joshix Wild and wooly, as it should be

     feld likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Jul-2023 19:45:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @alex >all copyright for anything it produces is assigned to you.
     The whole idea is the copyright can only be applied to creative works authored by a human.
     
     Either these automated plagiarism tools infringe copyright, or their output doesn't qualify for copyright.
     
     >In my experience none of these AI services infringe on copyright
     Do you have a source for that claim better than "just believe me bro"?
     
     >They do not produce derivative works, they produce original works inspired by the vast library of training data.
     Computers are meant to be deterministic and therefore cannot produce anything original - all they can do is calculations, although those calculations can be used to copy data and do transformations on it.
     
     What you're saying is that you have access to some software that you can put non-random numbers into and get truly random numbers out - that's preposterous.
     
     >Like, you can get an AI to draw you a picture of Mario. But it would not be based on any previously existing Mario picture
     How on earth is a computer meant to output a picture of mario without basing it off pictures on mario inputted into it?
     
     >it would be an all new image of Mario. This is similar to fan art.
     The thing is, fan works have been found to be derivative works of the original works many times in court.
     
     In countries with fair use, provided you meet the fair use requirements, fan art of mario is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden (although if you draw an original character that looks somewhat like mario, but clearly isn't, that may not be a derivative work).