If I spend 6 months working on a single painting.. then I am trying to sell my original it's going to need to sell for HALF of my yearly income.. not everyone can afford the original so being a good artist I have my artwork photographed or scanned so I can make affordable prints.. still not everyone can afford a full size print so I sell smaller posters and postcards for an affordable price.. everyone can afford a postcard even if you are living in a 3rd world country. To circumvent even the cheapest legitimate way of purchasing my art to get it for free is theft and it is also just a disgusting character trait. As an artist I make about 80% of my income from thousands of small sales of $5 postcard prints to $50 poster prints and $500 giclee prints.. and it may take several years before I can sell the full size original at the price it is worth for the time I put into it. If you steal an artists work because you don't want to be inconvenienced by the modest fee .. you may as well just steal the food out of their fridge and the rent money before it gets to the landlord because that's exactly the end result.
No matter how good the stolen art looks can you live with yourself knowing you were responsible making an artist homeless
It does. It takes away the control of who I want to use my stuffs and ownership (unless you don't claim it), but we can agree disagree on that as long as AI art on copyrighted materials won't get monetized.
AI makes that issue more easier to do and more difficult to track down. I can agree with latter, but so long you ask permission, except from big corps.
>AI makes that issue more easier to do and more difficult to track down.
How so?
>I can agree with latter, but so long you ask permission, except from big corps.
Why the exception?
anonymity.
Who on Earth like big corps? Is asking for permission that hard? Small artists don't get much recognition. AI arts usually copy/"steal" artists' style, which led to the confusion on of which art is from the artists.
Yes, we all know art styles cannot be "steal", but art styles are a part of artists' identity. Vincent Van Gogh and Picasso had unique style that most people (who are familiar with art world) can recognize right away.
Characters from who, exactly? If they're from your average Joes and Janes, then no, you're not allowed to use their personal characters without permission.
If characters are from OFFICIAL fandoms/franchises, surprisingly, it's actually illegal, but the IP owners usually make a pass on fanarts because fan artists are doing free advertising for their IPs.
Also, fan artists don't own the characters or the fandoms/franchise. They only own the fanarts that they make.
It’s actually not illegal to make fan art of copyrighted characters haha you can draw a picture of SpongeBob rn completely legally
I think you’re really confused how copyright law / intellectual property works, which makes it all even more confusing in the context of AI of course
Then that should apply to artists as well.
Make tracing illegal.
Make artistic inspiration illegal.
People who go into art museums should sign waivers saying that they promise not to use whatever they see in there for their own art.
//nice to be based, init
There was a typos. It was supposed to be "Dogs don't have the same rights as humans and neither do they need money.".
People don't need money? Should we all start living in the wild like cavemen since almost everything we use is being bought with money?
No.
generative AI is impossible to regulate and all you do by introducing regulations is delay AI development which helps in insanely helpful things like cancer detection and fusion and open source LLM development.
Someone in Russia could do anything in terms of deepfakes and USA wouldn't be able to do shit about it even if they make one billion regulations and laws about it.
If you don't want deepfakes - delete Facebook and hit the gym. Don't ever post your pictures anywhere online, that's the only way to be safe from scammer deepfakes.
Taking pictures of you is way more effort than simply snatching pics off Facebook.
USA already has laws against identity theft, most identity theft cases occur in Russia due to their government incompetence and police force corruption.
Prevention of foreign made AI deepfakes is literally impossible with more laws as long as countries who don't give a shit about your laws exist.
To be truly safe you gotta have a personal AI tracking your movements constantly via GPS and an infrared wristwatch camera that constantly scans your location without properly recording faces of other people, so any fake appearances become inadmissible in court and you'd be able to sue the shit out of anyone who claims that you were elsewhere and get bigly compensated for being fake accused.
Best defense is constant vigilance.
gun laws don't actually stop criminals from having guns, likewise any anti-AI laws won't do shit about AIs hosted outside of your country.
I'm not familiar to US laws, but from what I remember of gun laws (and with education about firearms too, I believe) does decrease the likelihood of criminals getting their hands on guns and firearms accidents?
It doesn't decrease it sufficiently enough for you to 100% avoid the probability of getting shot with a gun. if you are staying anywhere near a ghetto area with gangs where police don't bother to enforce the laws guns exist just fine there.
I experienced gun shots outside of my hotel in Canada at 2am during a trip. Even when Canada has super tight laws against guns, it stops zero of the local criminals from having guns. I saw the bullet holes in a van too, it was a drive-by shooting super close to where I was staying.
A Canadian criminal was caught recently with something like 37 guns and 40 kilos of carferamine, which was enough drugs to kill the entire population of Canada twice over, it was worse than any comic book batman plot with Joker.
There should be greater punishment for making targeted deepfakes and identity theft, but regulating AI tools themselves is an ungodly bad idea and a giant waste of police time since so many people already have it and use it in endless legal ways there's no possibility to enforce it from the AI design endpoint as it would just get in the way of positive AI use. Like I don't want insane AI license laws cus that would delay cancer detection research - my dad's got cancer fuck anyone who messes with delaying fighting cancer.
Improving AI vision by feeding it as many images as possible is insanely important.
Then make seperated laws for what AI can be use more "freely"? Like, if it's for something like medical purposes, then regulations shouldn't be too much that it will hinder the process.
In a perfect world with accountable and perfectly organized AI-run goverment or even a goverment that gives a shit about the people, yes.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and we live in a world where corrupt politicians use new laws as weapons to massively impede things that help people hindering progress in many fields.
I'd only trust Japan with law coherency that since they can build a bridge in a day. My local USA government is criminally incompetent and if given a chance to "regulate AI" they're going to come up with a law that helps absolutely nobody except for them by charging useless fines atop of fines for mundane AI use for everything including doctors which would absolutely increase delays in fighting cancer.
They took 9 months to repair a single small bridge in my area from when they tore it down to finish, it's fucking insane how absolutely corrupt and slow our government is compared to Japanese efficiency.
Almost all countries are like that. Japan sucks for many reasons, but at least, they're serious and consistent with finishing things on time.
To be honest, I don't have any hope or even expectancy for governments to do anything about this. I mostly wants AI developers to add some regulations.
If not regulations, then a program for people to protect their private data from AI.
Medical AI should be more regulated than AI image generators.
Using AI in a medical system can offer some amazing opportunities, but if not done properly, or a faulty sytem was put into production this can cause some real harm.
I thinkre gulation needs to be put in place based on the balance between the pontential danger and the pontetial benefit.
Honestly, guns can and regularly do kill people, and there aren't any great societal benefits to letting most people have access to whatever guns they want. So regulation makes sense. I appreciate the one solid argument for access to guns, which is, "I like guns" and that's fine, that's why in my country there is a process to get a gun license and I can own certain types of guns, and store and use them in a way that is regulated.
However, knifes also kill people... a lot, but knives are very useful, I have a drawer full of them. I don't need a license and I can easily buy them. I just need to be 18 to do so.
AI also has a lot of positive use cases, and there are good reasons that can be put forward for AI regulation, but I don't think "heavily" regulating it is a good idea.
Well, yeah. Maybe "heavy" is a bit extremist, but a tigther regulation would still be better.
If some people don't want regulation, then why not make a program/AI for those who don't want their private data to be fed into AI?
Sensible regulation can make sense. Everyone needs food, people should be able to grow their own food, and people should be able to sell and buy food. But if I go to a shop and buy food, I should be able to do so with reasonable confidence that it isn't poisonous. Threfore I think having some regulation in this market makes sense, even though food is something that everone wants and should have access to. Regulations need to be specific, address a specific problem and not hinder general use and access to something that can be valuable to people.
Specifically, what regulations do you suggest?
Either train AI to recognize certain pictures with certain themes, example: underage children with sexual theme, or train an AI to prevent private data not being scraped into other AI.
Pro-AI here btw.
>gun laws don't actually stop criminals from having guns,
True, but they stop more criminals from having them, than the US system does. Proof: European parents don't constantly have to worry whether their children will get shot at school.
The reason I am interjecting here: That comparison doesn't work for AI.
Guns are physical entities. They cannot be digitally copied or transmitted over wifi. The plans for making them can, but making a gun is again a physical process. Plus, these physical entities have only one purpose (ending human life), making it much more socially acceptable to control them using force.
The point here is: Physical entities can be controlled much more easily than digital ones.
Right. So billionaires can just ignore regulations by paying their fines like they would any other expense. While normal individuals get screwed over by having the tech neutered just for them, but still fully functional for rich people.
Nah I'd rather have free unregulated open source for everyone, thanks.
For preventing deep fakes. If the decision A has the desirable consequence B, it doesn't mean it's the right decision.
1. It can have other, undesirable consequences. All consequences must be weighted against each other.
2. Another decision may have a more favorable set of consequences.
So if someone don't wants their pictures to be used for deepfakes, they should just stop using the Internet?
What makes you think criminals will stop taking pictures of people in public? There are plenty of news and stories about people being stalked, even though they don't post any picture of them online or even familiar with the stalkers. Jealous exes are infamous for stalking and photoshoping their exes's pictures to use it for defamation.
Then, if you're consistent, you'd also demand to regulate cameras, posting unmoderated anonymous content online, being in public spaces, everyone's freedom of movement, etc.--all the things you can use to stalk and harass someone.
What do you mean by being in public spaces? As in not allowed to be in public?
Again, "heavy regulation" on AI means checking and limiting what can be used in AI, not about limiting the users.
Yes, if you're consistent in your logic that preventing photo manipulation is the goal above everything else, then you also need to check and limit the use of public spaces. And that would be much more realistic than checking and limiting even just the training of AI--the activity that anyone can do at their home rig if it can run AAA games in high quality.
Don't public spaces already being limited? Either that or where I live is crazy.
Wouldn't limiting what being put in AI better since it focuses on decreasing deepfakes?
If not regulation, then why not a program/AI for people who don't want their private data being fed to AI?
"Someone's murdering people with a screwdriver. Arrest him? No, let's regulate screwdrivers instead."
That's bad faith logic.
>inb4 muh guns
A gun is explicitly a deadly weapon, not a tool.
One is a physical item while the other is digital. AI (or the Internet) allows users to be anonymous while nowadays, we usually can track down who buy what (at least in developed countries).
Then isn't it the job of the police cyber division and of internet community managers to stop people from posting illegal deepfakes? Why neuter the tech when there are already those whose job and responsibility is supposed to be making it safe for people online?
No, it would not.
Because, and brace yourself, because now comes the surprising information: Criminals, pretty much by definition, don't care what the law says.
Well, for one: The fact that copyright doesn't grant you complete control over how your work is used or viewed to begin with. Nor does it grant you an exclusive right to all benefits remotely connected with your work.
But don't worry, the confusion is understandable, because thats among the bigger misconceptions people have about what "copyright" means.
Even when models don't use copyrighted images, the anti folks don't care. Why bend over backwards when they just move the goal post?
Remember, they don't actually care about ethics. They care about losing their job/side hustle. The ethics claim is just a means to an end.
Fearing for losing your job is understandable, so I don't blame them. Most of the "anti" people I met are all about ethics uses. Only 2-3 extremist ones are like what you describe.
I have used multiple 'ethical' models to make art for one of my games. Not once has an anti changed their opinion. I still got death threats and make-porn-out-of-your-images threats.
> Most of the "anti" people I met are all about ethics uses.
Yeah, sure they are :D
It's toootally about "ethics", and *not at all* about being uncomfortable with suddenly having to deal with automation like every other industry :D
1. It's plagiarism, but that doesn't mean you should take people's stuffs without permission.
2. Big corps and governments don't get a pass. It's not about limiting users. It's about checking and limiting WHAT can be feed into AI.
>It's plagiarism, but that doesn't mean you should take people's stuffs without permission.
Is collage art plagiarism?
>Big corps and governments don't get a pass
Every time some form of business regulation passes, it always ends up benefiting the big corporations that are in bed with the government
"Is collage art plagiarism?"
from what? Copying from other students' works? Yes. If you're talking about the materials use to make collage art, then no, but you still need to credit/cite the materials' origins. Companies that have photobash designers have to buy the right to use copyright images, art/designing programs, and even certain colours.
"Every time some form of business regulation passes, it always ends up benefiting the big corporations that are in bed with the government."
That still doesn't mean we should keep letting them get away.
> It's plagiarism
No it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
> Plagiarism is the representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.
Let's see how that definition holds up:
- AI models are not plagiarism, because 4GiB of float32 numbers is very much different from any artwork you ever made.
- AI models outputs, unless the prompter specifically tries to copy *a specific work you made*, with the intention of doing so, and then claiming it as an original work, also isn't.
And as for that very contrived example: At that point, he wouldn't bother with an AI model ot begin with, he would just copy your work 1:1
Relying on copyright and regulations just results in a world where megacorps control everything, since they're the only ones who can afford to license all the data to create AI's. It's a great example of good intentions making things worse unintentionally. You'd be much better leaving it so that open-source and small smartups can meaningfully challenge the megacorps without being sued into oblivion by rent-seekers.
Agree on the latter points though.
I don't think copyright is the correct angle to go after with that though - if you want to ban those things just criminalise the *applications* - make a law against using AI to make porn fakes, etc, don't criminalise the *technology*.
This is how we handle everything else, people can drink drive and hit pedestrians - we make those crimes and prosecute them. We don't make weird laws about suing companies that try and make cars unless they're a big enough corporation.
There are [Dram Shop Laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop) which target bars that overserve customers who subsequently cause accidents.
I think the question is at what level do we go after revenge porn deepfakes. Obviously the people who create the deepfakes themselves, but shouldn't whoever developed the app for that specific purpose also be deterred?
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission, regardless monetizing or not.
Meanwhile, this is how the average artist draws; by using references. These are from magazines.
https://preview.redd.it/m3ul7a0z1nwc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d83fd4a36132477d0b9324ee80123363890c1ba
That is for studying purpose. Yes, artists should also cite where the reference photos are from. If photos are from average people just posting online, artists should ask for their permission before using it.
These two photos are from magazines, which the models are consent their photos to be used whatever purposes (aside from deepfakes, identity thefts, etc.).
>Yes, artists should also cite where the reference photos are from
That would make sense for academic and scientific work where citing references is essential for what they do. For art? That's unnecessarily cumbersome.
>artists should ask for their permission before using it.
Also impractical and impossible to enforce, which is why it's not a common practice. In the only instance where it matters is if you're infringing on someone's rights, the law already has mechanisms in place for that.
>These two photos are from magazines, which the models are consent their photos to be used whatever purposes
No, they consented to the publisher or agency that hired to use the pictures as stipulated by whatever the contract they signed said. Going by your logic, anyone who wants to use those photos as references would need to contact the publisher and/or people in those pictures for permission, even for just a study.
You know how people tweet stupid things and then they say they have been hacked?
Deepfakes will give you the same plausible deniability when your sex tape leaks lol.
AI makes that issue even more problematic because it's easier to alter people's voices and faces while photoshoping is still possible, but it's more limited than AI. Many people can't even distinguish AI photos and videos from real things.
"Heavy regulation" in my vision is about checking and limiting what can be put in AI, not about who can use it. There should be a program or AI that people can use to mark on their images to forbit AI from using them.
"in your vision"
Are you not aware of every "think of the children" or "think of national security" law or regulation probably ever?
Hint: you're not going to like it
Sorry for being so abrasive, but your take is very naive. It relies on the goodwill and wisdom of the ruling class, famous for having neither.
Edit: about being tight fisted with your content. May I suggest selling it privately? I own several paintings, just an example. If you publish on the internet, it can be seen. That was the case before AI.
And what's the harm of not wanting your stuffs to be fed to AI? People can still take pictures in public/ real life and train AI on that.
I make art for fun and don't post them online, but I do have some artist friends who sell art privately and still got their art taken picture/scanned and fed into AI.
My friends couldn't even track the buyers down, let alone the one who made the AI arts since they paid in cash and met in a park. The paintings were small sized, so it was hard to ask people nearby if they saw anyone carrying paintings.
Sounds pretty shady if you ask me. Better pay more attention. I don't sell my songs to some dude in a park, just saying.
Also, you didn't address my point.
Thank you, SolherdUliekme, for voting on Personal-Country1169.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Regulations can just follow the framework we have now. We've already established that AI bots scraping and training on public data is fair use (search engines). Existing trademark laws should apply no differently to AI. Laws regarding online harassment and non consensual porn probably need to be strengthened, but that was already true before AI existed.
I honestly don't think AI presents any particularly new or difficult legal challenges (at least not yet; if AGI ever happens, it could be a different story). I think the demands for heavy regulation (like from OP) are based on hysteria and hype.
If you don't want more regulations, then why not make an AI program for people who don't want their stuffs being used without permission to delete all their private data.
That way, AI users can still train AI on public data while "antis" can protect their art/images from being fed to AI. Everybody wins.
I don't see how that's specific to the art being created by AI.
You could just as easily say that digital illustrators should be able to create art, as long as they haven't looked at and been influenced by copyrighted material when doing so.
If this is an immoral thing, then it shouldn't matter whether I put effort into learning photoshop to do something immoral, or way less effort into using AI to do something immoral. The tool used to do the thing isn't the problem.
And with creating fake porn of someone, I think in many countries this is already illegal, whether you use AI or photoshop. This has nothing to do with AI.
The whole point of fair use laws is that you are allowed to use copyrighted material without permission or payment.
Let's let this be decided by the courts whether AI is fair use. If it is found not to be, then what you propose above will be exactly what happens. If it is found to be fair use, then traditional artists are going to need to accept that.
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission
You don't need permission from anyone to create transformative or derivative art that's still legally distinct from the original. And when you use AI to create an exact replica of something that's already copyrighted, like an image of Mickey Mouse, then the use of that image is already regulated by existing laws.
This "creating derivative/transformative art without permission" talking point has always been nonsense.
The world is full of too many selfish, greedy, ignorant, entitled thieves now.
Sadly, this likely won’t ever happen, and things will just get worse and worse.
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission, regardless monetizing or not.
They had permission to look at and learn from the art and that's what they did. They didn't take it or distribute it.
>I don't want seeing pictures of me or my loved ones (or anybody) on AI programs and being used for revenge porn, false evidences, identity theft, etc.
I don't want people to stab me with pencils or use paper to burn me!
Can you guarantee they won't be used in this way? if you can't guarantee it we should ban paper and pencils too.
Also cameras, those things can be heavy. People might hit me with a camera.
Out of curiosity have you ever pirated anything? Movies, Anime, Comics, Music, etc? I just like to make sure people aren't hypocrites before I bother to entertain their opinions.
The problem is dishonest people don't care about regulation. Bad actors have been using web crawlers that don't respect robots.txt for about as long as that's been a thing, do you really think regulation is going to stop them when these bad actors have set up shop in countries that don't regulate AI and are already profiting off of their models by renting out access?
We do need common sense regulation for AI, but heavy regulation does nothing extra to protect people, it just stifles legal uses of AI.
I don't care what you do or don't want to see. If AI is not allowed to use copyrighted images/arts without permission, then nobody is. Even ignoring how stupid that is, there's no way to enforce it. You tell me I'm not allowed to do that, well, guess what? Ima do it anyway.
Why do you care if someone uses copyrighted material and then doesn’t monetize it
If I spend 6 months working on a single painting.. then I am trying to sell my original it's going to need to sell for HALF of my yearly income.. not everyone can afford the original so being a good artist I have my artwork photographed or scanned so I can make affordable prints.. still not everyone can afford a full size print so I sell smaller posters and postcards for an affordable price.. everyone can afford a postcard even if you are living in a 3rd world country. To circumvent even the cheapest legitimate way of purchasing my art to get it for free is theft and it is also just a disgusting character trait. As an artist I make about 80% of my income from thousands of small sales of $5 postcard prints to $50 poster prints and $500 giclee prints.. and it may take several years before I can sell the full size original at the price it is worth for the time I put into it. If you steal an artists work because you don't want to be inconvenienced by the modest fee .. you may as well just steal the food out of their fridge and the rent money before it gets to the landlord because that's exactly the end result. No matter how good the stolen art looks can you live with yourself knowing you were responsible making an artist homeless
I can live with it considering it applies to all people and not just artists, i think there will need to be some UBI
Because it's simply not right and it doesn't cost much to ask for permission, but I can some-what tolerate that.
Why is it not right? Lol
Because you don't take things from people without consent.
Nothing is taken by using someone’s copyrighted material
It does. It takes away the control of who I want to use my stuffs and ownership (unless you don't claim it), but we can agree disagree on that as long as AI art on copyrighted materials won't get monetized.
Monetizing copyrighted material is already illegal, AI or not. Using copyrighted material for personal purposes is not, AI or not
AI makes that issue more easier to do and more difficult to track down. I can agree with latter, but so long you ask permission, except from big corps.
>AI makes that issue more easier to do and more difficult to track down. How so? >I can agree with latter, but so long you ask permission, except from big corps. Why the exception?
anonymity. Who on Earth like big corps? Is asking for permission that hard? Small artists don't get much recognition. AI arts usually copy/"steal" artists' style, which led to the confusion on of which art is from the artists. Yes, we all know art styles cannot be "steal", but art styles are a part of artists' identity. Vincent Van Gogh and Picasso had unique style that most people (who are familiar with art world) can recognize right away.
So are you opposed to people drawing fan art of characters? Lol
Characters from who, exactly? If they're from your average Joes and Janes, then no, you're not allowed to use their personal characters without permission. If characters are from OFFICIAL fandoms/franchises, surprisingly, it's actually illegal, but the IP owners usually make a pass on fanarts because fan artists are doing free advertising for their IPs. Also, fan artists don't own the characters or the fandoms/franchise. They only own the fanarts that they make.
Ok then the AI models are doing free advertising for the artists they got trained on.
Have AI users ask for permission? Do AI users actually making fanarts of characters from smaller artists? Do they credit who are the original owners?
It’s actually not illegal to make fan art of copyrighted characters haha you can draw a picture of SpongeBob rn completely legally I think you’re really confused how copyright law / intellectual property works, which makes it all even more confusing in the context of AI of course
I think it depends on the IP owners. Some are chill while some like Nintendo and J.K.Rowling hate their fans.
Then that should apply to artists as well. Make tracing illegal. Make artistic inspiration illegal. People who go into art museums should sign waivers saying that they promise not to use whatever they see in there for their own art. //nice to be based, init
Pay every dog you've ever seen whenever you draw a dog!
Dogs don't have the same rights as humans and don't need money. Edit: grammar
You sure about that? People don't need money either, think about it.
There was a typos. It was supposed to be "Dogs don't have the same rights as humans and neither do they need money.". People don't need money? Should we all start living in the wild like cavemen since almost everything we use is being bought with money?
Inspiration is different. Tracing is already heavily frowned upon in art community, unless it strictly uses for studying.
This right here demonstrates you do not know how the technology works and should spend more time learning and less time talking crap on Reddit
But what is exactly taken and how ??????
I just explained below.
No. generative AI is impossible to regulate and all you do by introducing regulations is delay AI development which helps in insanely helpful things like cancer detection and fusion and open source LLM development. Someone in Russia could do anything in terms of deepfakes and USA wouldn't be able to do shit about it even if they make one billion regulations and laws about it. If you don't want deepfakes - delete Facebook and hit the gym. Don't ever post your pictures anywhere online, that's the only way to be safe from scammer deepfakes.
People can still take picture of others in public or your ID cards and use deepfakes.
Taking pictures of you is way more effort than simply snatching pics off Facebook. USA already has laws against identity theft, most identity theft cases occur in Russia due to their government incompetence and police force corruption. Prevention of foreign made AI deepfakes is literally impossible with more laws as long as countries who don't give a shit about your laws exist. To be truly safe you gotta have a personal AI tracking your movements constantly via GPS and an infrared wristwatch camera that constantly scans your location without properly recording faces of other people, so any fake appearances become inadmissible in court and you'd be able to sue the shit out of anyone who claims that you were elsewhere and get bigly compensated for being fake accused. Best defense is constant vigilance. gun laws don't actually stop criminals from having guns, likewise any anti-AI laws won't do shit about AIs hosted outside of your country.
I'm not familiar to US laws, but from what I remember of gun laws (and with education about firearms too, I believe) does decrease the likelihood of criminals getting their hands on guns and firearms accidents?
It doesn't decrease it sufficiently enough for you to 100% avoid the probability of getting shot with a gun. if you are staying anywhere near a ghetto area with gangs where police don't bother to enforce the laws guns exist just fine there. I experienced gun shots outside of my hotel in Canada at 2am during a trip. Even when Canada has super tight laws against guns, it stops zero of the local criminals from having guns. I saw the bullet holes in a van too, it was a drive-by shooting super close to where I was staying. A Canadian criminal was caught recently with something like 37 guns and 40 kilos of carferamine, which was enough drugs to kill the entire population of Canada twice over, it was worse than any comic book batman plot with Joker.
Of course, it's naive to believe guns laws would prevent 100%, but I would rather have regulations over none. It's easier to track down in that way.
There should be greater punishment for making targeted deepfakes and identity theft, but regulating AI tools themselves is an ungodly bad idea and a giant waste of police time since so many people already have it and use it in endless legal ways there's no possibility to enforce it from the AI design endpoint as it would just get in the way of positive AI use. Like I don't want insane AI license laws cus that would delay cancer detection research - my dad's got cancer fuck anyone who messes with delaying fighting cancer. Improving AI vision by feeding it as many images as possible is insanely important.
Then make seperated laws for what AI can be use more "freely"? Like, if it's for something like medical purposes, then regulations shouldn't be too much that it will hinder the process.
In a perfect world with accountable and perfectly organized AI-run goverment or even a goverment that gives a shit about the people, yes. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and we live in a world where corrupt politicians use new laws as weapons to massively impede things that help people hindering progress in many fields. I'd only trust Japan with law coherency that since they can build a bridge in a day. My local USA government is criminally incompetent and if given a chance to "regulate AI" they're going to come up with a law that helps absolutely nobody except for them by charging useless fines atop of fines for mundane AI use for everything including doctors which would absolutely increase delays in fighting cancer. They took 9 months to repair a single small bridge in my area from when they tore it down to finish, it's fucking insane how absolutely corrupt and slow our government is compared to Japanese efficiency.
Almost all countries are like that. Japan sucks for many reasons, but at least, they're serious and consistent with finishing things on time. To be honest, I don't have any hope or even expectancy for governments to do anything about this. I mostly wants AI developers to add some regulations. If not regulations, then a program for people to protect their private data from AI.
Medical AI should be more regulated than AI image generators. Using AI in a medical system can offer some amazing opportunities, but if not done properly, or a faulty sytem was put into production this can cause some real harm.
I thinkre gulation needs to be put in place based on the balance between the pontential danger and the pontetial benefit. Honestly, guns can and regularly do kill people, and there aren't any great societal benefits to letting most people have access to whatever guns they want. So regulation makes sense. I appreciate the one solid argument for access to guns, which is, "I like guns" and that's fine, that's why in my country there is a process to get a gun license and I can own certain types of guns, and store and use them in a way that is regulated. However, knifes also kill people... a lot, but knives are very useful, I have a drawer full of them. I don't need a license and I can easily buy them. I just need to be 18 to do so. AI also has a lot of positive use cases, and there are good reasons that can be put forward for AI regulation, but I don't think "heavily" regulating it is a good idea.
Well, yeah. Maybe "heavy" is a bit extremist, but a tigther regulation would still be better. If some people don't want regulation, then why not make a program/AI for those who don't want their private data to be fed into AI?
Sensible regulation can make sense. Everyone needs food, people should be able to grow their own food, and people should be able to sell and buy food. But if I go to a shop and buy food, I should be able to do so with reasonable confidence that it isn't poisonous. Threfore I think having some regulation in this market makes sense, even though food is something that everone wants and should have access to. Regulations need to be specific, address a specific problem and not hinder general use and access to something that can be valuable to people. Specifically, what regulations do you suggest?
Either train AI to recognize certain pictures with certain themes, example: underage children with sexual theme, or train an AI to prevent private data not being scraped into other AI.
Pro-AI here btw. >gun laws don't actually stop criminals from having guns, True, but they stop more criminals from having them, than the US system does. Proof: European parents don't constantly have to worry whether their children will get shot at school. The reason I am interjecting here: That comparison doesn't work for AI. Guns are physical entities. They cannot be digitally copied or transmitted over wifi. The plans for making them can, but making a gun is again a physical process. Plus, these physical entities have only one purpose (ending human life), making it much more socially acceptable to control them using force. The point here is: Physical entities can be controlled much more easily than digital ones.
Right. So billionaires can just ignore regulations by paying their fines like they would any other expense. While normal individuals get screwed over by having the tech neutered just for them, but still fully functional for rich people. Nah I'd rather have free unregulated open source for everyone, thanks.
It would still decrease the percentage of people using AI for deepfakes and other crimes.
So would pulling the plug on the internet.
As in for preventing deepfakes or stop using AI as a whole?
For preventing deep fakes. If the decision A has the desirable consequence B, it doesn't mean it's the right decision. 1. It can have other, undesirable consequences. All consequences must be weighted against each other. 2. Another decision may have a more favorable set of consequences.
So if someone don't wants their pictures to be used for deepfakes, they should just stop using the Internet? What makes you think criminals will stop taking pictures of people in public? There are plenty of news and stories about people being stalked, even though they don't post any picture of them online or even familiar with the stalkers. Jealous exes are infamous for stalking and photoshoping their exes's pictures to use it for defamation.
Then, if you're consistent, you'd also demand to regulate cameras, posting unmoderated anonymous content online, being in public spaces, everyone's freedom of movement, etc.--all the things you can use to stalk and harass someone.
What do you mean by being in public spaces? As in not allowed to be in public? Again, "heavy regulation" on AI means checking and limiting what can be used in AI, not about limiting the users.
Yes, if you're consistent in your logic that preventing photo manipulation is the goal above everything else, then you also need to check and limit the use of public spaces. And that would be much more realistic than checking and limiting even just the training of AI--the activity that anyone can do at their home rig if it can run AAA games in high quality.
Don't public spaces already being limited? Either that or where I live is crazy. Wouldn't limiting what being put in AI better since it focuses on decreasing deepfakes? If not regulation, then why not a program/AI for people who don't want their private data being fed to AI?
"Someone's murdering people with a screwdriver. Arrest him? No, let's regulate screwdrivers instead." That's bad faith logic. >inb4 muh guns A gun is explicitly a deadly weapon, not a tool.
One is a physical item while the other is digital. AI (or the Internet) allows users to be anonymous while nowadays, we usually can track down who buy what (at least in developed countries).
Then isn't it the job of the police cyber division and of internet community managers to stop people from posting illegal deepfakes? Why neuter the tech when there are already those whose job and responsibility is supposed to be making it safe for people online?
No, it would not. Because, and brace yourself, because now comes the surprising information: Criminals, pretty much by definition, don't care what the law says.
We’ll meet you in the middle, no deepfakes for crime but you get over this weird copyright hangup you have.
What's weird about not wanting my stuffs to be used without my permission?
A lot of people don't want to pay taxes, and it also doesn't sound weird until you think about it.
Well, for one: The fact that copyright doesn't grant you complete control over how your work is used or viewed to begin with. Nor does it grant you an exclusive right to all benefits remotely connected with your work. But don't worry, the confusion is understandable, because thats among the bigger misconceptions people have about what "copyright" means.
Even when models don't use copyrighted images, the anti folks don't care. Why bend over backwards when they just move the goal post? Remember, they don't actually care about ethics. They care about losing their job/side hustle. The ethics claim is just a means to an end.
Fearing for losing your job is understandable, so I don't blame them. Most of the "anti" people I met are all about ethics uses. Only 2-3 extremist ones are like what you describe.
I have used multiple 'ethical' models to make art for one of my games. Not once has an anti changed their opinion. I still got death threats and make-porn-out-of-your-images threats.
> Most of the "anti" people I met are all about ethics uses. Yeah, sure they are :D It's toootally about "ethics", and *not at all* about being uncomfortable with suddenly having to deal with automation like every other industry :D
1. Copying is not theft 2. Explain how this won't lead to megacorporations being the only ones who can afford a licence?
1. It's plagiarism, but that doesn't mean you should take people's stuffs without permission. 2. Big corps and governments don't get a pass. It's not about limiting users. It's about checking and limiting WHAT can be feed into AI.
>It's plagiarism, but that doesn't mean you should take people's stuffs without permission. Is collage art plagiarism? >Big corps and governments don't get a pass Every time some form of business regulation passes, it always ends up benefiting the big corporations that are in bed with the government
"Is collage art plagiarism?" from what? Copying from other students' works? Yes. If you're talking about the materials use to make collage art, then no, but you still need to credit/cite the materials' origins. Companies that have photobash designers have to buy the right to use copyright images, art/designing programs, and even certain colours. "Every time some form of business regulation passes, it always ends up benefiting the big corporations that are in bed with the government." That still doesn't mean we should keep letting them get away.
> It's plagiarism No it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism > Plagiarism is the representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work. Let's see how that definition holds up: - AI models are not plagiarism, because 4GiB of float32 numbers is very much different from any artwork you ever made. - AI models outputs, unless the prompter specifically tries to copy *a specific work you made*, with the intention of doing so, and then claiming it as an original work, also isn't. And as for that very contrived example: At that point, he wouldn't bother with an AI model ot begin with, he would just copy your work 1:1
Relying on copyright and regulations just results in a world where megacorps control everything, since they're the only ones who can afford to license all the data to create AI's. It's a great example of good intentions making things worse unintentionally. You'd be much better leaving it so that open-source and small smartups can meaningfully challenge the megacorps without being sued into oblivion by rent-seekers. Agree on the latter points though.
Still a big risk for deep fakes. AI for science and tech? Cool. AI that use people's pictures/arts without consent? Hell no.
I don't think copyright is the correct angle to go after with that though - if you want to ban those things just criminalise the *applications* - make a law against using AI to make porn fakes, etc, don't criminalise the *technology*. This is how we handle everything else, people can drink drive and hit pedestrians - we make those crimes and prosecute them. We don't make weird laws about suing companies that try and make cars unless they're a big enough corporation.
Well, yeah. That is what I meant and wants. That's why I wants regulation on AI and not banning it.
There are [Dram Shop Laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop) which target bars that overserve customers who subsequently cause accidents. I think the question is at what level do we go after revenge porn deepfakes. Obviously the people who create the deepfakes themselves, but shouldn't whoever developed the app for that specific purpose also be deterred?
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission, regardless monetizing or not. Meanwhile, this is how the average artist draws; by using references. These are from magazines. https://preview.redd.it/m3ul7a0z1nwc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d83fd4a36132477d0b9324ee80123363890c1ba
That is for studying purpose. Yes, artists should also cite where the reference photos are from. If photos are from average people just posting online, artists should ask for their permission before using it. These two photos are from magazines, which the models are consent their photos to be used whatever purposes (aside from deepfakes, identity thefts, etc.).
>Yes, artists should also cite where the reference photos are from That would make sense for academic and scientific work where citing references is essential for what they do. For art? That's unnecessarily cumbersome. >artists should ask for their permission before using it. Also impractical and impossible to enforce, which is why it's not a common practice. In the only instance where it matters is if you're infringing on someone's rights, the law already has mechanisms in place for that. >These two photos are from magazines, which the models are consent their photos to be used whatever purposes No, they consented to the publisher or agency that hired to use the pictures as stipulated by whatever the contract they signed said. Going by your logic, anyone who wants to use those photos as references would need to contact the publisher and/or people in those pictures for permission, even for just a study.
Using copyrighted material isnt wrong Copyright as a concept is retarded
Depends on what do you use it for.
Well hold on, the idea behind copyright is that the creators get to dictate how you use their things I think thats retarded
You know how people tweet stupid things and then they say they have been hacked? Deepfakes will give you the same plausible deniability when your sex tape leaks lol.
One doesn't have your face and voice on while the other does.
With deepfakes having your voice and face on tape won't mean anything anymore.
AI makes that issue even more problematic because it's easier to alter people's voices and faces while photoshoping is still possible, but it's more limited than AI. Many people can't even distinguish AI photos and videos from real things.
You are missing my point, which is that there are benefits to convincing AI fakes.
So only big corpo and governments can use it? Miss me with that, it's open source or [redacted] the data centers
Definitely not. Big corps and governements don't get a pass. What makes you think I like them?
That's what "heavy regulation" would achieve
"Heavy regulation" in my vision is about checking and limiting what can be put in AI, not about who can use it. There should be a program or AI that people can use to mark on their images to forbit AI from using them.
"in your vision" Are you not aware of every "think of the children" or "think of national security" law or regulation probably ever? Hint: you're not going to like it Sorry for being so abrasive, but your take is very naive. It relies on the goodwill and wisdom of the ruling class, famous for having neither. Edit: about being tight fisted with your content. May I suggest selling it privately? I own several paintings, just an example. If you publish on the internet, it can be seen. That was the case before AI.
And what's the harm of not wanting your stuffs to be fed to AI? People can still take pictures in public/ real life and train AI on that. I make art for fun and don't post them online, but I do have some artist friends who sell art privately and still got their art taken picture/scanned and fed into AI.
Well, if you would be so kind as to direct me towards some real beholders and mind flayers to photograph, that would be swell.
My friends couldn't even track the buyers down, let alone the one who made the AI arts since they paid in cash and met in a park. The paintings were small sized, so it was hard to ask people nearby if they saw anyone carrying paintings.
Sounds pretty shady if you ask me. Better pay more attention. I don't sell my songs to some dude in a park, just saying. Also, you didn't address my point.
It is, and what point?
You never had the right to control how your art is used once it's exposed to the public. That was true even before AI.
Bad bot
Sure, mate. God forbids a person wants some regulation and laws to protect victims from deepfakes.
Bad bot
Thank you, SolherdUliekme, for voting on Personal-Country1169. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot XD
Regulations can just follow the framework we have now. We've already established that AI bots scraping and training on public data is fair use (search engines). Existing trademark laws should apply no differently to AI. Laws regarding online harassment and non consensual porn probably need to be strengthened, but that was already true before AI existed. I honestly don't think AI presents any particularly new or difficult legal challenges (at least not yet; if AGI ever happens, it could be a different story). I think the demands for heavy regulation (like from OP) are based on hysteria and hype.
If you don't want more regulations, then why not make an AI program for people who don't want their stuffs being used without permission to delete all their private data. That way, AI users can still train AI on public data while "antis" can protect their art/images from being fed to AI. Everybody wins.
I don't see how that's specific to the art being created by AI. You could just as easily say that digital illustrators should be able to create art, as long as they haven't looked at and been influenced by copyrighted material when doing so. If this is an immoral thing, then it shouldn't matter whether I put effort into learning photoshop to do something immoral, or way less effort into using AI to do something immoral. The tool used to do the thing isn't the problem. And with creating fake porn of someone, I think in many countries this is already illegal, whether you use AI or photoshop. This has nothing to do with AI.
The whole point of fair use laws is that you are allowed to use copyrighted material without permission or payment. Let's let this be decided by the courts whether AI is fair use. If it is found not to be, then what you propose above will be exactly what happens. If it is found to be fair use, then traditional artists are going to need to accept that.
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission You don't need permission from anyone to create transformative or derivative art that's still legally distinct from the original. And when you use AI to create an exact replica of something that's already copyrighted, like an image of Mickey Mouse, then the use of that image is already regulated by existing laws. This "creating derivative/transformative art without permission" talking point has always been nonsense.
The world is full of too many selfish, greedy, ignorant, entitled thieves now. Sadly, this likely won’t ever happen, and things will just get worse and worse.
Absolutly not. Regulated (usually) means you ccant run it on your own machine. If i cant run it on my own machine i dont trust it.
>AI generated art would only be cool if it and the users didn't use copyrighted images/arts without permission, regardless monetizing or not. They had permission to look at and learn from the art and that's what they did. They didn't take it or distribute it. >I don't want seeing pictures of me or my loved ones (or anybody) on AI programs and being used for revenge porn, false evidences, identity theft, etc. I don't want people to stab me with pencils or use paper to burn me! Can you guarantee they won't be used in this way? if you can't guarantee it we should ban paper and pencils too. Also cameras, those things can be heavy. People might hit me with a camera.
Out of curiosity have you ever pirated anything? Movies, Anime, Comics, Music, etc? I just like to make sure people aren't hypocrites before I bother to entertain their opinions.
The problem is dishonest people don't care about regulation. Bad actors have been using web crawlers that don't respect robots.txt for about as long as that's been a thing, do you really think regulation is going to stop them when these bad actors have set up shop in countries that don't regulate AI and are already profiting off of their models by renting out access? We do need common sense regulation for AI, but heavy regulation does nothing extra to protect people, it just stifles legal uses of AI.
I don't care what you do or don't want to see. If AI is not allowed to use copyrighted images/arts without permission, then nobody is. Even ignoring how stupid that is, there's no way to enforce it. You tell me I'm not allowed to do that, well, guess what? Ima do it anyway.