bioemerl

Do you want AI to exclusively be in the hands of big companies and the government?

Do you want the future of technology locked behind pay walls and censored so that you can’t use it to do anything they don’t want you to do?

If you think AI regulation comes in the form of making sure big companies can’t do bad things to you, you haven’t been paying attention.

Big AI regulation fan.

I’d say good riddance but the replacement is worse

It doesn’t really matter whether the original data is present in the model

Yeah it does. One of the arguments people make is that AI models are just a form of compression, and as a result distributing the model is akin to distributing all the component parts. This fact invalidates that argument.

This isn’t a slam dunk argument that there’s nothing wrong with what an AI does even if we grant it is transformative. It may also simply be proving that the copyright law we have fails to protect artists in the new era of AI.

If we change the law to make it illegal it’s illegal.

Over fitting is an issue for the images that were overfit. But note in that article that those images mostly appeared many times in the data set.

People who own the rights to one of those images have a valid argument. Everyone else doesn’t.

It is illegal to use copyrighted material period outside of fair use, and this is most certainly not.

Yeah it is. Even assuming fair use applied, fair use is largely a question of how much a work is transformed and (a billion images) -> AI model is just about the most transformative use case out there.

And this assumes this matters when they’re literally not copying the original work (barring over fitting). It’s a public internet download. The “copy” is made by Facebook or whoever you uploaded the image to.

The model doesn’t contain the original artwork or parts of it. Stable diffusion literally has one byte per image of training data.

They use a ton of data as reference points. It’s literally in the name of the technology.

Reference is the wrong word.

They learn the patterns that exist in data and are able to predict future patterns.

They don’t actually reference the source material during generation (barring over itting which can happen and is roughly akin to a human memorizing something and reproducing it).

RVC is the most popular tool I’m aware of

https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI

Technical people down below were like “yeah cool, but there’s no place for it

I think you might underestimate entertainment and creation. Right now I can imagine some character or scenario in my head and generate a little avatar with stable situation then render it onto a live chat that (mostly) works.

I’ve paid like 2k for a computer that enables this. It’s make money from me at least.

It’s all about the idle power and software support.

commissioning an artist from fiverr

Not really. It’s still $5. This is a problem for two reasons. First is that no artist can make a living drawing art for $5 a pop, it’s just not sustainable and the only way for you to regularly do this is to take advantage of people who are learning.

So you’re not going to get anything very good, and in the process you’re basically paying a human being with some minimum wage to do work for you.

we would let many more companies get away with not paying artists for every piece of art available in a board/card game

Well yeah, that’s the point. Art becomes free, easily accessed, and more widely spread. a big company right now is going to say what, a few percent of their budget?

But small studios? Little groups? People without a large budget? All of a sudden they are able to create works that are competitive with these former large studios because they don’t have to hire an artist anymore. An independent creator can now do more than they ever had, and that makes them more competitive with the big studios.

This isn’t the room for the big companies because they don’t have to pay the artist anymore. It’s actually a massive loss, because the more the barrier to entry goes down the worse off they are.

And at the end of the day artists aren’t entitled to my money.

we would let many more companies get away with not paying artists for every piece of art available in a board/card game

Without a question we would. I would absolutely love to take my current library of music and feed it to an AI and say make me more stuff I like and have a constant stream of brand new music instead of listening to the same 200 or 300 songs that I’ve downloaded over the years.

will become scarce and likely only for the rich to enjoy

Look at the other side of the coin, every single person on the planet is going to have instant access to an artist in their pocket, a little machine that they can give an instruction to and get a workable piece of art out of.

That is something that only the rich have access to right now, enable creative expression beyond our wildest imagination for all of the people who don’t have 5 to 10 years of their life to dedicate to learning art.

You looking at the negative, a relatively small negative, and totally ignoring the positive side of this coin which is going to change the face of human creativity as we know it.

It’s like being angry that only rich people are going to have bands playing in their restaurants because the poor people will be using records. Sure, but we quite enjoy having prerecorded music nowadays and we would never give that up in exchange for live artists.

The same principle applies, our lives will be improved by this and as long as that’s the case it’s a good thing, even if it means change.

From my perspective you’re fighting to keep this sort of self-expression in the hands of the few instead of the hands of the many. Your practicing elitism and pretending in the process that you’re fighting for the common person, but the common person will benefit more from widely accessible and easy to use tools than the rich will.

i dont see why they would share it freely anymore

Because humans like to express themselves and share that expression as widely as they can for no other reason than the active sharing and having their works seen by many.

The most pure and durable Art is Art as a hobby. Art as a form of self-expression?

this assumes that genAI models can improve without any new input

They can. Or at least, you can use things like human rating systems to guide an AI to produce outputs that people enjoy and train it that way instead of using raw works of art.

As a rule, if humans can do it, AI can do it too. It’s only a matter of figuring out how.

I have used smartphones with half the processing power of 778, and they all work fine.

And that’s fine, but I don’t want the chip from 5 years ago, I want to chip with modern performance that can do any modern task you can throw at it like driving a high refreshed screen when playing random video games.

this assumes that there will still be human produced art to train on to improve the genAI model when there isnt any incentive for humans to learn to make art when it can be used for training

Fears like this never pan out. People don’t stop doing things just because of AI existing, and we still have people doing things like making vinyl records even though CDs exist or whatever, or taking old-fashioned photographs.

Artists are going to still exist and they’re going to still be drawing art and they’re going to continue to share it. It may take a chunk out of the number of people who want to learn art, but that’s life and the people training these AI will adapt to it.

And even if they somehow totally disappear, people will find plenty of new and exciting ways to continue to push the boundaries of what AI can do, because at that point being able to do that will be what gives you a competitive advantage in the world.

OpenAI’s Terms of Use

Open AI is a shitty unethical company. Never use them as a litmus test.

And unfortunately despite what is right or wrong, lawsuits still managed to determine how behavior happens in our modern system, and groups like the MAFIAA (the music and film industry association of America) are happily willing to abuse the law to get their way so that they can make as much money as possible as well.

This is the beginning of the end friend.

People who use AI will create a better cheaper product and at the end of the day its use as a new technology is justified. You’ll be clinging to an ever smaller raft and eventually have to abandon your ideals.

And at the end of the day art is not stolen when used to train a machine. Copyright itself is an artificial legal construct, and it’s the right to redistribute, not the right to learn from art. You can’t invent rights out of thin air and get any when they’re broken

I’m not, that’s my point

Shit cpu

a Motorola

Chinese brand is a no go

99 percent of phones can’t be unlocked nowadays

And an unlockable bootloader.

Decent CPU and RAM.

High rate screen

Unlockable bootloader

SD card

Removable battery.

Such a phone would be an instant buy for me, but nobody wants to make them