> 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.
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.