"impossible to develop AI further if we cant feed it with copyrighted material"
https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/tv/dd47448c-de9e-4ed6-a207-50d5564f50aa
man behind AI says copyrighted material need to be fed for AI in "fair use" principle, for free
you gotta remember that output of image AI will never be exactly the same as input so even if original material was copyright, the output doesnt look identical to original
SOME copyright holders claim that it is like plagiarized music, if you steal a melody from copyrighted song it is evil, even if you share it for free
here is list of copyrights:
-blog posts
-photos
-forum posts
-partial code of software (an algorithm)
-USA government documents
now you see why its impossible to avoid copyrights in the feed, if none copyrighted material is used, the resulting AI is useless
"yeah I can draw thousand pics of stick figures with mspaint, feed them to AI and watch what produces as output, let me tell you its not pretty, it wont be useful, but it wont be copyrighted either, he said"
AI outputs realistic picture like this
What was input? Nobody knows. Was it copyrighted? Nobody knows except copyright companies will probably find a resemblance to something.
And they'll have to use AI to trawl through the massive amounts of information. good luck training that without copyrighted content.
It's pretty safe to know what the input was.
That image is about 10,000 brainless selfies, 100,000 images of league of legends cosplayers, the female lead in "office space" and some footage of beaches.
Literally just look at the image and you can see the influence. It's that easy, I can't believe people think generating images and text is a huge crazy deal.
>muh post truth AI can makeup anything!
You guys are morons, AI cannot make anything low quality, it's a computer it's always going to try hard. If you know you know. Normies who take everything at face value are going to be btfo.
>that's everyone
Anon... you better hope that the people who can tell don't reproduce.
>That image is about 10,000 brainless selfies, 100,000 images of league of legends cosplayers, the female lead in "office space" and some footage of beaches.
Yeah but who'se copyright it is, thats a real wonder
I claim it. I copyrighted it. I drew that image and sent it to the AI directly.
I lost all proof though.
its not beaches its burning man mong
Burning man prompt. Lame
its lame but that face looks very real so AI is getting better
yep the content industry will squeeze AI and AI content creation companies will have to pay copyright holders if they use their data in their training
but there's a wealth of old stuff out there, books, movies, music, etc. that ai can be trained on, and things like soviet encyclopedias, things that are now out of copyright, nazi youth training manuals, etc.
Kek...
Copyright silences the owner, israelites on damage control, either let your stuff be used, or get erases from history.
Hahaha, I hate copyright
I'm not clicking that shit.
>Thomas the tank engine meme inserted here
Hey OP. Go frick yourself. Ok?
Tech is good
the tank engine meme inserted here
riveting.
Does any normal person give a shit about copywrite or attach any moral value to ignoring it? No IP is owned by a real person in any case so what does it matter
If IP law is ignored then publishers/studios/patent firms go out of business.
People are past caring, these laws cause more trouble than they are worth
who's ever going to find out just looking at an AI generatic picture?
I have no idea how they sense a copyright violation in generated image
>this image looks like it might have been inspired by something in a pokemon episode
Copywrited
The argument of not using copy righted material flys in the face of artistic expression. A human artist observes art and is inspired and uses ideas from what ever art they saw, it's impossible to not have your own art influenced by art you have seen created by others. The argument that you can't use copywrited works to gain ideas to create something else is silly as that would outlaw anyone taking artistic inspiration from another piece of art they have seen. It's no different than a machine doing the exact same thing but on a faster scale. I figure that as long as it isn't a copy written character or live actual person it's fair game. Just like if someone decided to paint in the style of rembrant no one would bat an eye and say you were stealing rembrants ip.
This. You can't use AI to make another Lord of the Rings movie because LoTR is copyrighted, but you can use the LoTR movies as input to generate new characters and stories so long as you're not using the copyrighted characters or copying the stories.
None of that matters anyway unless you are selling it.
>None of that matters anyway unless you are selling it.
I wish that were true but the countless examples of fan works based on copyrighted movies and TV shows that have been taken down is evidence to the contrary. They don't care if you drew every frame by hand, if it's based off a copyrighted movie or TV show they'll have it taken down.
Look at the poop emoji scandal hitting ebay to see why these laws need to be scrapped completely
horseshit. companies that profit from copyright will try leech money off AI companies, but AI art is protected against copyright infringement claims in the same way an artist's inspiration is. Let them give their money away to israelitenstein lawyers ltd they won't win a cent of compensation.
just do it anyways
ive never seen a model PROVE what it was trained on before
how the frick would you know without asking it specific shit
then you could just say it was from reddit parsed posts
unless its highly specific, then just make that part private Black person
It's not plagiarising things, it's inspired by them, the same way anyone else is. This is an infringement of AI rights. Treating it like a machine.
whats a good AI generator that you dont need to sign up for
I dont know if thre are particularly good generators which also wouldnt require some kind of identification of the user
Your imagination
ComfyUI, it's open source on github.
Better to start with Automatic1111. Easier to understand for a noob. Then start diving in by watching guides on Yt.
Don’t waste your fricking time learning, just jump ahead to comfy UI you fricking pleb, nodes are infinitely better
AI models measure the training data. They don't copy it.
>impossible to develop AI further if we cant feed it with copyrighted material"
And we need to develop AI further because?
Oh right, yeah. Surveillance state oligarchy hellhole must be manifested. My mistake, carry on.
Copyrightgays should off themselves
>copyright holders
well frick the copyright israelite.
The whole thing is designed to keep the big fishes on top.
It's worse than that. It's designed to create a justification for invasive authoritarianism. If you hum a song in your head that you haven't paid for then you have violating copyright. That means we need some kind of brain monitoring chip in order to make sure everyone is respecting copyright law. Dystopia is now rationalized and legitimized. Of course we don't have brain scanning chips etc, but so long as people respect the spirit of the law, or society's technological progress will be in that direction. We might not have it today, but if we have it tomorrow it will be because of copyright.
>Of course we don't have brain scanning chips etc
its right around the corner, by 2030 its mandatory
Imagine the schizos in government who are going to interview thousands of people before they find one compliant enough to be permitted to read other people's thoughts.
This is not true, and not how copyright is defined. Fair use wouldn't even exist as a concept if this headcannon was true. If you however tried to make money or used the song for a utility of attention or subliminal means then, yes, you could get a strike filed against. But no, playing music at a private party has never infringed on copyright claims.
This. I have no interest in simping for Big Tech, but if they win this battle against the copyisraelites, then it will be a huge benefit for all of humanity.
Why are human artists allowed to take inspiration from copyrighted material without paying the owner?
thats a good question
because humans do not create in the same way that these AI models do. a AI model scrapes the internet, taking artwork without consent or the knowledge of the artists, and then uses that in a similar way one might use it for a collage, it is not inspired or influenced, it is a derivative.
derivatives, no matter if it's created by a human or AI, require permission from the IP holder. if you drew a original character, and I copied that or used it in some one in my own work, that is illegal. most artists do not mind if other artists copy their character or style, because it is never a 1 to 1 copy, a style is something that is nurtured over a number of years, so not something that can be easily copied by a human. while technically illegal, no artist is going to pursue legal action, some might if their ego is big enough, but for most it is not damaging enough to be worth it.
AI on the other hand is making direct copies of other people's IPs and style, to the point where it is endangering their livelihoods. of course artists are going to be pissed off about this, and rightfully so.
there is your answer, now quit fricking parroting this talking point. I see it all the time with you AI homosexuals.
Frick off IP Nazi.
AI is transformative.
Simple as.
People have my legal consent to use AI to read my images.
Once you create something, it is no longer yours unless you physically protect it with your own life/limbs.
This is a simple truth.
The moment you sing me a song, nothing outside of outright violence can stop me from singing the song.
I can be put in jail, I can be exiled, and I can still sing the song.
You must literally force me to stop singing.
Same logic applies to everything, you can not stop me. Unless you force me.
So go ahead and try to stop me, we will see who wins.
>SOME copyright holders claim that it is like plagiarized music, if you steal a melody from copyrighted song it is evil, even if you share it for free
If I want to start a band, do I need to pay every band I ever listened to as a child?
the copyrighted dudes go as far as to say one simply guitar riff is tolen from band x from 80s and when you think how many riffs there must be out there, recorded, thats quite a number to avoid when coming up with original song
AI is function that learns from something and then creates something else, just like the chinese. Right glowies?
All the analogies in this thread are comparing AI algorithms to human inspiration. A machine cannot be inspired. A better comparison with AI training itself on copyrighted material is like being forced to train your replacement at your job even though it was never part of your contract that you would have to do so and, because you have done so, you will becoming permanently unemployable in your field. The problem ultimately is not copyright. The problem is AI itself.
What if it's subconscious though? There's plenty of people that have made music for example who realised during the process they accidentally copied another work and had to scrap it.
That's more analogous to training data.
I think there's a proportionality when it comes to humans taking inspiration from each other. The opening to 'Down Under' by Men at Work is an example of what you've described, where the band, they insist, inadvertently used a melody from another song. When people plagiarise it's about as easy as that to identify that they've done so. Because AI is able to assimilate so much more material than us, and able to work so much faster, the impact on artists of AI plagiarism is more injurious and harder to detect. I'm not sure what I'd advocate at this point. I just wish AI art wasn't possible to begin with tbh.
obviously.
how are you going to ask it questions about pop culture if you can't teach it about pop culture?
>huh? pop culture is gay.
well, pop culture touches everything.
i guess, another approach, would be to just ignore them and do it anyways.
if they get pissed, ask them to prove it.
hand them the weights and ask them to pull out their work to demonstrate that it was used in the first place.
lol.
good luck with that shit.
Fair use doesn’t apply to AI because AI doesn’t have any use outside of commercial. It should be legal for end users to do so with AI that they are customizing to particular purposes but not companies that will use this data to increase the monetization potential of their product, which is well outside the bounds of fair use.
... the output of a human creative and the output of a diffusion model can be seen as equal in front of a juristic instance! once something looks too close to a copyrighted IP, it doesnt matter who created it, you either pay a license fee, or you skip the proft orintated publication!
so its nonsense to claim diffusion or language models should not be allowed to be trained with copyright content, because then you must forbid humans to learn to recreate copyright IP content too!
Just call it "sampling" and now you're suddenly allowed to rip entire songs to use in your own music. Music industry has been doing it for decades
dont you need permission to put a sample in your own song
Sampling requires that the artist using them pay royalties associated with the song produced if it's for commercial release, but most can use it for promotional causes as a demo tho, which would monetize it indirectly in attention for the artist.
Not if you just sell your mixtape bro.
>"impossible to develop AI further if we cant feed it with copyrighted material"
>"impossible to develop new technology and inventions if we can't use copyrighted material"
Regulations, copyrights, etc are keeping us from progressing like we should have been doing for decades but nope we're severely limited because of stupid rules
i want to frick the ai.
AI is all-you-can-eat buffet for lawsuits, the moment something is fed into one it's not easy to get it out, so it's like child support at that point. pay up, corpo.
CW is a violation of free speech anyway.
Generative AI does not threaten copyright law because what it produces requires human input (prompt).
The real AI however will destroy both copyright law and the economy.
So might as well abolish copyright law now. 😀
>The real AI
Please. As an AI researcher... stop fricking calling it that. The hyperintelligent shit you've been seeing in movies? We already have a term for it: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Referring to AGI as "real AI" implies that existing AI is somehow "fake". The term AI on its own doesn't necessarily need to refer to AGI. It's jargon that can refer to any sort of decision making engine that can "act rationally". And that definition of "rationally" is pretty fricking relative, hence why the entirety of ML sometimes gets referred to as a subset of AI.
Seriously, it's our fricking jargon, and I'm getting really tired of listening to normalgays treat anything that doesn't resemble the fricking Terminator as "not actually AI". Hearing this misuse of the term by the general public is like a physicist hearing the way folks like Spirit Science use the word "energy". Instant fricking cringe.
Existing AI is fake though, it's a gradient descent function that ties language to images or other language. This shit has been around forever, it's a rebranded search engine.
Making fancy language for it may help in your likeminded cloistered nurseries of software dev, but the public are going to call it what the advertisers do, get fricked.
>As an AI
opinion discarded. any message or post that has that phrase immediately goes to the ignore list. gptslop.
>if you steal a melody from copyrighted song it is evil
"stolen melody" needs to be the same otherwise it is a different melody. you can't have a different but similar melody and claim it was stolen.
ai pictures are not the same.
Part of her nose is missing.
All I know is copyright and patent trolling by certain law firms and circuit judges is already a thing in the Americas. The threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in "discovery" proceedings is enough to shut most anything down before it even gets started now with regards to technology in general.
There is an audio book called Copyright Wars that goes through the centuries old history of the 'problem'. AI is ripe for lawfare.
I'd rather have AI than litigious copyright trolls. Patent trolling has already allowed a small number of tech oligarchs to consolidate power and then turn that power to making sure people are nice to Black folk. Lets not repeat the mistake here.
it's not a collage. it's not sampling music. it's not even mixing pepsi and coke in the same glass.
all of you trying to compare new thing to old thing in order to never learn properly about new thing are basically boomers in training. you are the next generation's "how do i make this VCR show on the TV?"
>AI companies now say copyrighted material is mandatory
nothing like creating laws to try to own truth, to capture it, milk it, and capitalize upon it while penalizing other people for seeking it and spreading it and then creating an algorithm idol and insisting that it's above the selfsame law created because why?
oh yeah, because it's your real baby, a manifestation of your prideful arrogance.
may hell be comfy
They will just make it like radio where they pay a flat fee that will be distributed among the well connected of the copyrightholders in order to create a barrier to entry to developing AI so that only the israelites and Chinese ( who don't gaf ) have it.
Want to develop AI? You better pay the MPAA/RIAA fee or whatever.
Copyright needs to be overhauled for the digital age. You should not be able to live off of patents or trademarks, that's parasitic. Things need to start becoming public domain once an industry specific time frame has elapsed. "Oh I created this thing and now i sit on my fortune forever" what a great way to waste all the creative minds potential have them taken advantage of by business minded corporate parasites
AI must be copyleft.
The code its trained on should all be GPL.
The model's vector weights must all also be GPL.
Any output the AI produces must also be GPL.
It's almost like copyright law needs to be stronger in order for the various producers of quality content (that AI will train on to create massive productions with the least man hours) to get paid.
The same human developers will then use AI to generate ideas, completely not understanding that AI is going to be giving them back input material.
I think it'd be ideal for the artist to have developed his own style that he could turn into a large production without the aid of a team. AI has the potential to replace the teams of artists necessary to many productions so it'd be pretty foul if it's also dipping into the work of others for free. Proving the copyright infringement might be challenging but, ethically it's what's right to keep the occupation and the practice itself with the tools existing in reality alive.
Yet Stable Diffusion doesn't touch copyrighted material, while Midjourney and all the other closed softwares do. Makes you think
Totally not planned by wef over a decade ago
if the ban ai then only criminals will have ai
arianna.dowling
Sage
If you create something you own it.
Imagine a radio station arguing they'll go out of business if they can't use copyrighted music for free.
The civil war will kick off when multimillionaire performers rise up with their private security apparatuses and influence revolution against their former masters. Screencap this.
>impossible to develop AI further if we can't feed it with copyrighted material
They're not wrong.
Well, it's true. I mean people fuss about art and music. But pretty much every news article has a copyright on it. How can AI function if it can't read the news?
copyright is a scam and should die
Big Tech are for-profit companies. AI isn't a charitable gift to humanity - they are developing it to make money.
>"impossible to develop AI further if we cant feed it with copyrighted material"
no problem, but then all AI technologies should be free to use and profit from. deal?