Do human artists usually get consent before training on content freely available on the Internet? There are plenty of reasons to hate on AI, but this reason is just being pissed that a silicon brain did it instead of a carbon one.

Nature is healing.

The fact that you’re comparing human artists to slop machines is really sad. There is no “silicone brain” making any of this stuff. I think you should take a few minutes and learn how this stuff works before making these comparisons.

I feel there is nutjobs on both sides tbh.

Right, because computers don't use silicone. But Gen AI is modeled after the way the brain works, so maybe **you** need to learn how it works before arguing against a comparison.

Wow thank you for this comment. It helps detail your level of knowledge on this subject, which is very helpful to myself and others. There is nothing else to discuss here on my end.

AI companies are the biggest data aggregator though and they indiscriminately scrape literally everything. I am personally completely against copyright and patent law specifically. But sometimes, like in this case, they can be necessary tools. There are probably better ways to protect against AI but none that are recognized in our current framework of how society functions. AI companies are literally stealing everything ever posted online, cause they couldn't exist without all the data, and then selling it back to people in form of tools while destroying the environment in the process with increasingly gigantic and powerhungry data centers. While also destroying the tech consumer market in the process by buying up components or straight up component producers and taking them off the consumer market.

Please quote me the line where this covers machine generation as well? I'd love to sell Google translated Harry Potter books for being transformative work. Maybe I can transform the lastest movie releases to MKV and sell those.

Not really. We just have to wait long enough for either enough disasters to occur that the crowd successfully rejects it; or the current crop of workers will be so unable to accomplish simple tasks without it, the rest of us will just move up the ladder past you. They'll ask ChatGPT, "how to spreadsheet.", because they just can't remember since use of LLMs has been creating cognitive decline in users. Those of us who use our brains, rather than the stolen knowledge and hallucinated regurgitation of a blind database, will be the drivers in the work force.

>transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a *different manner or for a different purpose from the original*, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. You can use a book to train an AI model, you can't sell a translation just because you used AI to translate it. These are two different things. Collage is transformative, and it uses copyrighted pictures to make completely new works of art. It's the same principle.

I'm in an entirely different industry than the topic at hand here, but my boss is really keen on ChatGPT and whatnot. Every problem that comes up, he's like "have you asked AI yet?" We have very expensive machines, which are maintained (ideally) by people who literally go to school to learn how to. We had an issue with a machine the other day and the same ol' question came up, "have you asked AI yet?" He took a photo of the alarm screen and fed it to ChatGPT. It spit out a huge reply and he forwarded it to me and told me to try it out. Literally the first troubleshooting step ChatGPT gave was nonsense and did not apply to our specific machine and our specific set-up and our specific use-case.

Alrighty, so generative AI works by giving it training data and it transforms that data and then generates something based on a prompt and how that prompt is related to the training data it has. That's not functionally different from how commissioned human artists work. They train on publicly available works, their brain transforms and stores that data and uses it to generate a work based on a prompt. They even often directly use a reference work to generate their own without permission from the original artist. Like I said, there are tons of valid criticisms against Gen AI, but this criticism just boils down to "AI bad because it's not a human exploiting other's work."

So you're saying capitalism is the problem. We agree!

> "When AI first came out in 2022, we'd already started on the game. It was just a new tool, we tried it, and we didn't like it at all. It felt wrong." I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm pretty hardcore anti-AI these days, but when it was just hitting the masses and it was the shiny new toy, I was ignorant about the specifics and tried it out here and there. So this specifically resonates with me. > Broche then drew a line in the sand. He mused that it would be hard to predict how AI might be used in the gaming industry in the future, and declared, "But everything will be made by humans, by us." I hope they stick to their word on this, but only time will tell in that regard.

Not a single line in your comment offers anything that machine generation, which is not at all human creative work, falls under fair use.

By data aggregators, I strictly mean websites like Reddit, Shutterstock, deviant Art, etc. giving them the keys would bring up the cost of building a state of the art model so that any open sourcing would be literally impossible. These models already cost in the low millions to develop. Take video generation for instance, almost all the data is owned by YouTube and Hollywood. Google wanted to charge 300$ a month to use it but instead, we have free models that can run on high end consumer hardware. Scraping has been accepted for a long time and making it illegal would be disastrous. It would make the entry price for any kind of computer vision software or search engine incredibly high, not just gen AI. I'd love to have laws that forced everything made with public data to be open source but that is *not* what copyright companies, AI companies and the media are pushing for. They don't want to help artists, they want to help themselves. They want to be able to dictate the price of entry which suits them and the big AI companies as well. I'm all for laws to regulate data centers and manufacturing, but again, that's not what is being pushed for. Most anti-AI peeps seem the be helping the enemy a lot more then they realize.

It uses the content in a different way for a different purpose. The part I highlighted above applies to it? Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.

> Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant. I asked nicely to provide a quote that machine generation is also covered that you couldn't provide and now feels the need to lash out. And yes, I absolutely expect that machine generation is explicitly mentioned for the simple fact that right now machine generated anything is not copyrightable at all. A computer isn't smart, a computer isn't creative. It's output doesn't pass the [threshold of originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality), as such there is no creative transformation happening, as there is with reinterpretations of songs. What is copyrightable are the works that served as training set, therefore there absolutely has to be an explicit mention somewhere that machine generated works do not simply pass the original copyright into the generated work, just like how a human writes source code and the compiled executable is still the human author's work.

> Nature is healing. Nah, they're lying. They'll just cover their tracks better in the future.

Humans aren't machines, dummy