cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3613920
Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
Stupid tardigrade doesn’t even know how to play a violin
He’s doing his best!
Good thing it’s got a cello then.
One thing I know about violins is that they’re smaller than cellos. Cellos are what, 4 feet long? That tardigrade is like 1mm big or something, much smaller than a cello. Therefore, it’s holding a violin. Or maybe a bowed mountain dulcimer. /kidding
1mm? Dude, the scale is in the image, that’s 150μm, one tenth that size. That viola is only 50μm long.
Stupid human doesn’t even know what a violin looks like.
NGL, I am pretty tired and have my glasses off, thought he was holding a sword and shield and thought this was pretty cool.
This is great.
per Wikipedia
On September 21, 2022, Allen submitted an application to the us copyright office for registration of the image. Prior to the first formal refusal, the Copyright Office Examiner requested that the request would exclude any features of the image generated by Midjourney. Allen declined the request and requested copyright for the whole image.
So what I’m getting from that is his Photoshop edits aren’t significant enough to constitute a copyrightable work on their own and the copyright office was right to deem it a non-human production.
I’m just happy someone at the copyright office knows what they’re doing
This has been the copyright office’s stance for quite a while now. Actually, most of the world’s respective IP registrars and authorities do not grant IP rights to AI generated material.
I’m glad about this, honestly.
If you want to use an AI model trained on vast sums of publicly posted work, go for it, but be ready for the result to be made into a truly public work that you don’t own at the end of it all.
I agree. I think the effective entry into the public domain of AI generated material, in combination with a lot of reporting/marking laws coming online is an effective incentive to keep a lot of material human made for large corporate actors who don’t like releasing stuff from their own control.
What I’d like to see in addition to this is a requirement that content-producing models all be open source as well. Note, I don’t think we need weird new IP rights that are effectively a “right to learn from” or the like.
I’m 100% in favor of requiring models to be open source. That’s been my belief for a while now, because clearly, if someone wants to make an AI model off the backs of other people’s work, they shouldn’t be allowed to restrict or charge access to those models to the same people who had their work used, let alone other people more broadly.
Oh sweet summer child…
Oh tired reddit catchphrase…
Bless your heart.
Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.
He made the art shown below. It’s not even good lmao, why the fuck would you declare something like that if you make the shittiest looking AI art. What a fucking clown.
It looks cool from a distance, but it really falls apart when you look closer
He didn’t make shit.
A computer made it. He provided some guidance.
Of course he didn’t, but it just makes it worse that the image that’s “ending human art” is distorted and glitchy.
Well in a way all Art is being done indirectly by some sort of instrument. Only the degree of sophistication or degree of separation of this instrument is different. A pencil drawing is in principle also done by the pencil, but I provided a lot of guidance through my hand. A pencil - almost no sophistication - is on one side of the spectrum and Midjourney/Stable Diffusion etc is on the other side of the spectrum.
I don’t want to judge AI “art” in general - there’s so many awful traditional artworks that AI art doesn’t really stand out.
What rubs me the wrong way is that it is a tool that no human can understand reasonably well. Everybody can understand a pencil. It’s possible to understand a computer renderer that renders digital art. But no one can understand the totality of an LLM which was trained on terabytes of images. It’s a lot of trial and error, because what the tool does generate random images even with precise directions. It’s throwing dice until one likes the result.
The one thing I give this “artist” credit for: he was very early (maye even the first?) that entered AI art into a contest and fooled the jury. Being the first is often enough historically to make “great art”. Where art is more measured n the impact it has on a societal discussion. So I give him that.
But a court already decided you can’t copyright AI art, because it’s trained on other art without permission. So he can get fucked.
The pencil does not make the art.
There’s a fundamental difference between AI image generation and an artist creating something that is both inherent and obvious.
If you can’t see that then I’m not sure there’s much help for you.
More than that, art being created by an artist has a style and a feeling behind it. There’s a nostalgia present in every painting. An artist saw something, and recreated it in a way that spoke to them.
An algorithm can recreate images that look similar but with no understanding. It’s just an image and lacks all the things that makes art what it is. By removing humanity from art you literally remove the reason for it to exist.
Flatly, it isn’t art. It’s slightly better than random. But as it happens, humans are better at that too.
It annoys me that whatever the big yellow circle is isn’t centered in the image.
That doesn’t bother me as much as when you actually zoom in on the people
Normally you paint somebody, you do so in a recognizable pose standing or caught in a frame stance that implies their motion.
Here you have someone presumably looking at the orb, But they look more like a weeble wobble. Is that their tiny little arm holding there ear? They’re not balanced, I’m not even sure the head is connected to the neck there should be meat back there right? The raw proportions are just wrong.
The overall feeling the piece conveys is pretty impressive but the actual details are bullshit.
Looks like a psychedalic dream and not in a good way.
I said this when it was posted elsewhere- how is he calculating those millions of dollars?
RIAA and MPAA anti-piracy strategy, aka, made up bullshit.
He asked ChatGPT.
Probably the same way companies tried to sue The Pirate Bay because the bay had lost them more money than existed in the world economy.
It’s easy. He chose an arbitrary number that was very big but just shy of 99% unrealistic, according to his own flawed judgement.
“”“Artist”“”
i think “content creator” would be a better term in this case. because i’m not convinced it’s art, but it sure is “content”. maybe “content requester” would be more accurate.
“Famous” A"I" “Artist”
I like the comment that said the AI is the artist and he’s just a commissioner, makes perfect sense.
Drag thinks profits from AI art should automatically go to funding an AI Advocacy Commission established by the government to explore questions of AI consciousness and AI rights. The AAC should be devoting resources to solving the hard problem of consciousness and improving working conditions for AIs, in whatever way experts believe is most beneficial to AI welfare.
This is how you stop The Matrix from happening, people!
Poe’s law in full swing in this comment.
Drag is being entirely serious. Drag believes AI is a vegan issue until the hard problem of consciousness is solved in a way that conclusively proves AIs are not capable of experience. We have as much trouble telling if animals like fish are capable of feeling pain as we do with AIs. Drag does not eat fish, and drag does not believe it is right to use AI until we have an answer. Drag thinks the answer might be that using AI is fine, but drag is not a gambler and drag would certainly not gamble with another being’s life.
Then “drag” (whoever that is) anthropomorphises a statistical model, which is stupid.
Removed by mod
I checked out their other comments and yes: it is quite cringe.
@dragonfucker@lemmy.nz if you claim that you’re not speaking in the third person of yourself, you should stop conbugating your verbs in the third person.
Elliot Page uses he/they pronouns. They were the lead actor in the movie Juno.
Drag wonders if you think drag has just conjugated that verb as if Elliot were more than one person.
Drag does not use he/him pronouns. Drag doesn’t like it when you misgender drag. Drag is a trans AMAB person who has trauma from being he/himed most of drag’s life. Drag asks that if you cannot respect drag’s nonbinary identity, you could at least respect drag’s trans identity at the most basic level.
how about this?
They’re talking about themselves in the third person. They are not as funny or as intriguing as they think they are.
Talking in the third person seems to just be a from of tolling for fun, and it’s all well and good, but in that context I garner doubts about the veracity of your claims as you seem to go about roleplaying a caricature style built around your username.
I didn’t intentionally mis-gender you, I have a tendency default to the fewest letters to refer to a random person online not knowing biological gender or preferred pronoun and gendering without any intent to insult or distress.
[He = less typing, and only requires 2 bytes of data vs 4 bytes to be stored and sent/resent for every view of a message. I continue to argue like a nerd that he/her is by far the best all-around option to adopt as the universal ‘generic’ pronouns, as they/them is a plural usage that typically implies more than one. When you have one person with a they/them pronoun in the same discussion with a group of people that are de-facto referred to as they/them due to the representation of a plurality, it creates a definitive lack of precise communication on the subject of reference. They/them only works in a singular pronoun when you don’t have multiple subjects to represent in and out of the context of a discussion. Exactness of language to discern intent and meaning is exactly what preferred pronouns are useful for, but they/them introduces it’s own complexities of structure and content for an individual’s preferred identification, IMO. This admittedly doesn’t take personal traumas into account, but traumas are something to be dealt with through positive mental health therapy, be it self directed or from outside help, to overcome it them.]
I’ll gladly use your preferred pronoun and gendering once I’m aware you have such request, but you shouldn’t use it as a whip to distract/dismiss criticism entirely unrelated to pronouns, that sort of self service can be diminishing of your own trauma.
I certainly don’t know the reality of living trans AMAB and experiencing trauma from a lifetime of perceived mis-gendering, but I do wish you well, and hope you have a support structure around you of friends and family that are understanding and supportive.
Drag has some things to work out, as we all do in different ways, but I hope their life works out for the best on their own terms. Maybe in time people will get used to Drag talking in the third person, but the comedic styling needs some practice to level it up.
Cheers.
/Thank you for coming to my TEDragon talk.
Drag does not anthropomorphise anything! Drag resents that accusation. Drag has spoken with many otherkin who are entirely inhuman and still deserving of love and respect. Drag treats AI like those. Not like a human.
it’s still antropomorphisation.
Cool for drag. Mind if other people don’t give a crap about what drag thinks?
Drag thinks that if your opinion is that treating things like otherkin is anthropomorphisation, then you must be anthropomorphising otherkin.
The layers to irony in this case is almost too delicious.
It’s probably a safe bet that this AI artist was also a NFT artist or procurer a few years ago.
Not the Onion. This was unexpected…
Agreed.
Get fucked, you no talent ass clown.
He’s really good at writing words about his on-stolen-content-based generated image, you got to give him that.
But no, fuck copyrighting AI content, that’s a dead channel from a copyright perspective.
Same link without tracker
It’s not “famous” that should be in inverted commas, but “artist”.
We call those quotation marks.
But yes.
Aren’t inverted commas also a phrase for that? Or is that the joke.
Yeah. It’s from the old printing press times when they used the same pieces of type for commas and quote marks, just rotated 360 degrees.
Rotated 180 degrees.
Ah, yes
Who is we? The global pedant society?
The English language? I have never heard the phrase “inverted commas.”
But as to your point: “Both? Both is good.”
From the national broadcaster of England
Ah, the usual case of English and American being two entirely different languages despite pretending otherwise.
The national broadcaster of Britain. Otherwise it would be called the EBC, not the BBC.
I know, I deliberately said England here to emphasize they would be a good authority on the English language
Ok so I apologise for my earlier snarky reaction but I felt zahille7’s response was somewhat condescending. Particularly since it is terminology recognised by three major English dictionaries, one of which is widely regarded as the leading authority on the English language… https://www.oed.com/dictionary/inverted-comma_n?tl=true https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inverted-commas https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inverted-commas
… So just because you have never heard of something, doesn’t give you licence to be rude to someone or talk down to them as if they are stupid for their choice of phrasing. Or maybe it just means you aren’t British…
Nailed it on the last one. I was going to say, you can probably thank the American education system if it’s common enough to be recognized by dictionaries like those. And Zahille7 is probably American, too, which caused the snarky comment in the first place.
Just the usual case of English being a crazy language that ruffles through other languages’ coat pockets looking for loose adverbs.
Actually I’d argue you could put quotation marks on every word in the first half of the headline.
They forgot to put “Artist” in quotes too
anyone can be an artist, but it takes talent to become famous.
You’re not wrong, but he also might not be either :)
eat shit dude
