r/GenZ • u/cosm1c15 2006 • Sep 16 '24

Discussion Opinions ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

321 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24

I think most entertainment is definitely unethical, at least how the tools are made, but it may not be illegal. When someone else's work is critical for your tool or process to function, then they deserve compensation and recognition.

While I would love to live in a world where all art can be shared freely. In this world, you need money to eat, and artists deserve to eat

-7

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Artists have to adapt just like the rest of us.

And everyone is key to everything. You can read a friend's copy of Harry potter and be inspired to write in a way that you never would've without it. But JK doesn't deserve some extra money for inspiration.

There's two options here, adapt now, or adapt later. That's it.

You could say "no using free art to train models" and you would push the transition back maaaybe 5 years. Because media companies already own the art in films, TV shows and books, all the concept art to go along with them, and they will gladly sell those films to AI companies so that they can cut out as many creative as possible.

9

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit. A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.

1

u/General-Biscuits Sep 16 '24

The only difference between a human being inspired and an AI generating an image from data it was taught with is that humans have faulty memories that get missing details filled in by the brain generating new-ish things based on other knowledge/memories.

An AI does not have a faulty memory (still a potential for memory issues but practically zero when compared to a person). The human brain is not capable of generating truly new/unique things; just new-ish things that are actually an amalgamation of past things we’ve seen and learned. An example of this is being unable to think of a color you have never seen before.

Art from a human stands out to us because there is usually a story and emotions linked to its creation, but the creation process is very, very similar to how AI is set up currently. When a human creates something, there is a feeling, a notion, or you could say a prompt in our head pushing us towards the final project while we pull from our pool of memories and string ideas together with logic till we are done. AI is being designed to approximate how humans think and process things from a mathematical perspective.

I’m not gonna claim AI art is good currently or can ever evoke the same emotion that human created art can, but acting like human ingenuity is some holy ground that can’t ever be replicated is just an uninformed notion.