So, what's your view on how we should legally think about AI art models that use copyrighted art for training data? I'm not sure there's a compelling analogy?
Clearly this is what human artists do all day long, of course. And the question is in what way is that different form having an AI do it. Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in people familiar with the most relevant law.
I know a lot of artists are basically just opposed to this sort of thing, and part of that is the harm done to their lifestyle. To be honest I am torn. I don't like the idea of creativity being consolidated into powerful models held by a few corporations. But then most entertainment is already held by a few corporations.
More deeply... a world of really good AI art is kind of magical?
Like, I get it - if you're like me you've spent a ton of time getting decent at a craft and then to see an AI do it is upsetting. But if you'd told me in the abstract "in the year 2030 or so, you'll be able to make a feature film in your basement" I'd be in favor of it at almost any cost!
@ZachWeinersmith Is it really that upsetting to see an AI do your craft? The AIs have serious weaknesses. The quality of their output tends to be on the order of a kid fresh out of college. They can regurgitate, but not understand.
I feel like, if you've spent years getting "good" at something, only to be surpassed quickly by an algorithm, it's possible that you just weren't actually that good to begin with. And that's fine! Not everyone is good at everything, and we don't have to be good at something to enjoy doing it.
But maybe, just maybe, AI will wipe the floor with the people who were just going through the motions and putting out mediocre work. But those with talent, who have truly found their calling, will rise above.
Obviously, this would be a much easier pill to swallow if our livelihoods and well-being weren't so closely tied to our work and we had UBI or something, but in the long run / big picture, I think it will be a net positive.
