419
We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
419 points (83.0% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3822 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
God I fucking hate this braindesd AI boogeyman nonsense.
Yeah, no shit you ask the AI to create a picture of a specific actor from a specific movie, its going yo look like a still from that movie.
Or if you ask it to create "an animated sponge wearing pants" it's going to give you spongebob.
You should think of these AIs as if you asking an artist freind of yours to draw a picture for you. So if you say "draw an Italian video games chsracter" then obviously they're going to draw Mario.
And also I want to point out they interview some professor of English for some reason, but they never interview, say, a professor of computer science and AI, because they don't want people that actually know what they're talking about giving logical answers, they want random bloggers making dumb tests and """exposing""" AI and how it steals everything!!!!!1!!! Because that's what gets clicks.
They interviewed her because she wrote about generative ai experiments she conducted with Gary Marcus, an AI researcher who they quote earlier in the piece, specifically about AI’s regurgitation issue. They link to it in the article.
All of this and also fuck copyright.
Why does everyone suddenly care about copyright so much. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
It's actually pretty concerning. A lot of the anti-AI arguments are really short-sighted. People want to make styles copyrightable. Could you imagine if Disney was allowed to claim ownership over anything that even kinda looked like their work?
I feel like the protectionism of the artist community is a potential poison pill. That in the fight to protect themselves from corporations, they're going to be motivated to expand copyright law, which ultimately gives more power to corporations.
We asked this artist to draw the joker. The artist generated an copyrighted image. We ask the court to immediately confiscate his brain.
I was thinking exactly this. If i asked an artist to draw an image of irom man, i would bet that they would draw him in a famous pose, and they would try to draw his suit accurately or make it resemble a scene from the movie.
I would also bet that it would not be exact, line for line. Like they knew that there were buildings in the background. They knew his hand was up witht the light pointing at the viewer, they knew it was night time and they know what iron man looks like, maybe they used a few reference images to get the suit right but there would be enough differences that it wouldnt be exact. These images are slightly different than the movie stills and if made by a human they would look pretty similar to what the AI has done here. Especially if they were asked to draw a still from the movie like in this article.
If you copy work without giving credit to it's source then you're the asshole, the rules shouldn't be any different for AI.
If you ask your friend to draw something with a vague prompt then I like to think you'll get something original more often than not, which is what the article discusses in depth: the AI will return copyrighted characters almost every time.
The rules aren't any different for AI. AI is not a legal entity, just like a pen and canvas are not. It is always about the person who makes money with facsimiles of copyrighted previous work.
So then the people operating this AI and offering paid services are legally in the wrong and should be taken down or pay reparations to everyone they've stolen from.
Again, that makes as much sense as holding Staedtler responsible because someone used their pencils to duplicate a copyrighted work.
If Staedtler sampled copywritten works to create pencils that automatically steal it without attribution on demand, then yes it would be exactly like that.
So do you want to shutdown Google because I can type "spongebob squarepants" into Google images and Google with give me an image of spongebob?
Please put some thought into the implications of what you're saying outside of AI before you make a knee-jerk reaction like that.
Those images in the search results are one of three categories:
Officially licensed and distributed works that Spongebob IP owners signed off on
Fair use works, namely noncommercial and parody
Illegal works the posters of which can be sued
Google themselves didn't create those images. Google didn't intentionally profit off of illegal works without giving credit. Google didn't post those images themselves. AI did all of those things.
It doesn't matter if Google creates the images.
It doesn't matter if they "intend" to profit from illegal works.
It doesn't matter if they "give credit" (this is the one that's the dumbest because it just reeks of ignorance, like thinking you can use whatever works you like as long as you put a credit to them in the description)
Google showing you copywritten images when you search for them is not different than when an AI does it.
It does actually matter if Google creates the images and then sells them directly. That is what this discussion is about. If you don't want to be a part of the discussion, fuck off then.
Imagine getting this riled up over a stranger on lemmy thinking something different to you.
Maybe put the phone down, take a deep breath and go for a walk outside for a moment.
I see you've abandoned your argument to express your mental image of somebody you've never seen or heard before. I accept your resignation, then, happy to help you see the light.