That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work.
Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent.
That’s a violation of their work and of their rights.
And that should also alert those that expect to use/benefit of their own production out of these generators: why would it be 1/ protectable, 2/ protected at all.
It is no coincidence that these generators makers’ philosophy aligns with an autocrat political project, and some inhuman « masculinity » promoters. It’s all about power and nothing about playing by the rules of a society.
As people have mentioned, people are still against legally-sourced generative AI systems like Adobe's, so concern over IP rights isn't the only, or I suspect, major, objection to generative AI that people have.
It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set?
The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument.
And my point above is not really an objection, it's a reminder: of what are AI generators, and what they are not (and that AI generators promoters pretend they are, without any piece of evidence or real argument).
Of what their output is (a rough, industrial barely specified and mastered product), and what it is not (art).
> how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set?
And this is why I've stopped arguing with people from this crowd. Beyond the classic gatekeeping of what art is, I'm sick of the constant moving of the goalposts. Even if a company provides proof, I'm sure you'd find another issue with them
Underlying all of it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI tools are used for art, and a subtle implication that it's really the amount of effort that defines what "art" really is.
And what crowd? I am stating my viewpoint, from an education in humanities AND tech, and from 25 years of career in software tech, and 30 years of musician and painter practice.
Sorry but who is moving the goalpost here? Who is coming with their tech saying « hi, but we don’t care about how your laws make sense and we don’t care that we don’t know what art is because we never studied about it, neither do we have any artistic practice, we just want to have what you guys do by pressing a button. Oh and all of your stuff is free for us to forage thru, don’t care about what you say about your own work. »
Typical entitled behavior. Don’t act surprised that this is met with counter arguments and reality.
Artistic expression does not « move on » without me, or people.
Artistic expression is people in motion, alone or in groups.
You’re talking about the economics of performances and artefacts, which are _something else_ out of artistic expression.
EDIT to clarify/reinforce:
Elvis without Elvis isn’t Elvis. Discs, movies, books are captures of Elvis. Not the same thing.
Miyazaki without Miyazaki isn’t Miyazaki. It may look like it, but it is not it.
Artistic expression is someone’s expression, practice (yours, mine, theirs). It’s the definition of the originality of it (who it comes from, who it is actually made by).
A machine, a software may produce (raw) materials for artistic expression, whatever it is, but it is not artistic expression by itself.
Bowie using the Verbasizer is using a tool for artistic expression. The Verbasizer output isn’t art by itself. Bowie made Bowie stuff.
What would be gatekeeping is if someone prevented you to pick a pencil, paper, a guitar, a brush, to make something out of your own.
You’re the only one gatekeeping yourself here.
Looks like it’s the same pattern as with blockchains, and NFTs and Web3 stuff and the move fast/break things mantra: you cannot argue for and demonstrate for what your « solutions » actually solve, so you need brute force to break things and impose them.
That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work.
Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent.
That’s a violation of their work and of their rights.
And that should also alert those that expect to use/benefit of their own production out of these generators: why would it be 1/ protectable, 2/ protected at all.
It is no coincidence that these generators makers’ philosophy aligns with an autocrat political project, and some inhuman « masculinity » promoters. It’s all about power and nothing about playing by the rules of a society.