Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CypherLH t1_j67nlpz wrote

Reply to comment by TwitchTvOmo1 in Google not releasing MusicLM by Sieventer

Yeah, its the potential slowing down that bugs me. I assume all the big AI players would have to build entirely new data sets to fit within whatever the new copyright regime would allow. Then re-train their large models on the new data sets, etc. Would definitely slow things down and some players like MidJourney might have to close their doors with a setback like that.

Plus I fear the broader implications of a new copyright regime that would effectively allow genres, fashions, and styles to be copyrighted.

3

TwitchTvOmo1 t1_j67o8dg wrote

Capitalism gonna capitalise mate. Every corporation will lobby billions doing their best to find a way to profit as much as possible off of AI. Even though it should be democratized.

Let's take this post for example. OP says he has no idea why they'd keep MusicLM private and how their usual argument of "it could be dangerous" doesn't really make sense here. It's because it's bullshit and that's not the reason they're keeping it private. It doesn't even have anything to do with the potential legal battles. The real reason is they know it's going to be a MASSIVE cash cow in the next 5 years and they'd be stupid not to milk it behind the scenes while acting like they're looking out for the world. Only chance of them releasing it is if a competitor like stability.ai releases something similar for free. Then they would be forced to release theirs too (not for free of course) before stability.ai erodes the entire market and they can no longer make the trillions they dreamed of.

Free market competition is the only hope there is. And that still looks a bit grim, considering the huge amounts of capital needed to make progress in these areas. And we all know which are the companies with those huge amounts of capital. The same ones that wanna squeeze every profitable penny out of AI progress.

3

purgatorytea t1_j67ok6g wrote

I 100% agree with you. And the only people who stand to benefit in that scenario are the big companies and the wealthy who will hire lawyers to enforce whatever they believe they "own". Expanding copyright will only hurt regular people and smaller artists...the artists that these "movements" are claiming they're advocating for....the smaller creators who are joining in on the anti-AI crap... they're the ones who will be harmed by the new copyright regime....moreso than simply allowing AI art generators to operate without this legislation and slowdown of technology. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some big companies trying to push the anti-AI art movement because they know it's a big opportunity to gain control of the industry and increase their own profits.

2

CypherLH t1_j67q5pq wrote

Yep, the anti-AI artists are literally trying to cut of their own noses to spite their face. They will be cutting their own throats if they get their way. They should be embracing this technology as a way to augment/expand their work and welcoming all the new people showing an interest in art because of the accessibility of the AI tools.
The annoying thing is they are spreading this shit on tiktok and elsewhere, indoctrinating young budding artists to hate "Evil AI" that is stealing all their works and trying to suck out their humanity. (literally, my 11 year old is spouting this stuff at me because of shit she is seeing online)

4

wavefxn22 t1_j67v35u wrote

It’s not evil it’s a tool, that evil people can use as well as good people.. it needs copyright restrictions so you can’t just straight up steal someone’s unique style that they spent a lifetime developing . But it also shouldn’t be so restricted that we can’t make anything at all

1

visarga t1_j68qfux wrote

Styles, by definition, are broad categories. If they were copyrightable, then the same rule would need to apply to both humans and AI. We can never know when a human has used AI or just looked at AI for inspiration. So we have to assume any human work might have AI in it.

If human works would be exempt from the strict rules AI has to follow what's to stop the big companies to hire people to white wash the style copyrights? What companies need is to license some images in that style. The images can be produced for hire at the lowest price.

2

wavefxn22 t1_j69828s wrote

They aren’t necessarily broad categories. You can ask ai to do something in the style of a specific artist. Say, van gough. His style was not a broad category, it was very distinct. And even he had styles within his styles, different periods.

Ai can be broad or specific, when it gets too specific as in people asking for “in the style of van gough” then we need some copyright protections.

Picked van gough as an example because he killed himself thinking he was worthless. He’d be even worse off today

1

visarga t1_j6c2z5z wrote

I disagree, copyrighting styles is absurd, countless possibilities banned in one go? We'll get to the point where humans fear creating anything because it will inevitably resemble some style somewhere.

2

wavefxn22 t1_j6d8crl wrote

I don’t think you understand what I said; there’s a range. A work in the style of Van Gogh, is a limited style range that should have copyright protections. A work in the style of Impressionism however is fair use.

1

visarga t1_j6n30bh wrote

I don't think even Van Gogh can claim ownership of squiggly lines that look like fire or the colour palette of white-blue-gold. They pre-existed and were rediscovered in many ways in by many artists.

Can we agree that a style used by 3 or more artists doesn't belong to anyone and is open for AI to use? We just need to make a list of all styles that are generic enough.

0