Technology

59092 readers

4744 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

180

AI learned from their work. Now they want compensation. (wapo.st)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Peaces@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A rising movement of artists and authors are suing tech companies for training AI on their work without credit or payment

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t see c how training an ai in publicly available information is any different than a human reading/seeing said information and learning from it.

well, the difference is that humans are quite well autoregulated system… as new artists are created by learning from the old ones, the old ones die, so the total number stays about the same. the new artists also have to eat, so they won’t undermine others in the industry (at least not behind some line) and they cannot scale their services to the point where one artist would serve all the customers and all other artists would go die due to starvation. that’s how the human civilization works since the dawn of the civilization.

i hope i don’t need to describe how ai is different.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure this argument really addresses the point. If some human artist did become so phenomenally efficient at creating art that they could match the output of the likes of Midjourney as it is today, I don't think anybody would be complaining that they learned their craft by looking at other artists' work. If they wouldn't, it's clearly not the scale of the output alone that's the issue here.

It's also not reasonable to describe the art market as an infinitely and inherently self-regulating one just because artists die. Technology has severely disrupted it before. The demand for calligraphers certainly took quite a hit when the printing press was invented. The camera presumably displaced a substantial amount of the portrait market. Modern digital art tools like Photoshop facilitate an enormously increased output from a given number of artists.