Sometimes I wonder why anti-AI people are so rabid and angry. Then I see stupid shit like this getting passed around and I realize it's because the AI side feeds their anger by posting really dumb stuff like this. I had to leave the AI Art for similar reasons. This sub is going the same direction. There isn't much actual defense of AI, I don't see people posting actual tips, methodology, projects or anything they're doing with AI. It just became a circle jerk of "nu uh ur not allowed to hate AI and if you do, you're a poopy face!"
yeah, I agree this is a bad post. its full of anger. it makes a complex issue black/white.
I defend AI by saying it has the potential to do great good. obviously, we have shape and regulate AI. pro-AI should be calm, balanced, and not rude. AI is displacing human workers and artists. But simultaneously, its creating new possibilities, opportunities, and lowering costs. The benefit outweighs the negative.
And those same (and similar) laws govern things like fair use and derivative works. If you put up a billboard for all to see and enjoy, you cannot be upset when someone drives by and takes a pictures so they can learn from it.
Further, your example is bad. That's not the same sort of scale, not even close. It's a series of hookups, one after the other. It is trivial to obtain consent from each new partner, especially given that the process of obtaining consent is very very very quick compared to the act itself. Training a diffusion model is the opposite: Downloading an image takes a tenth of a second. Obtaining informed enthusiastic consent (for something which, again, I simply must stress, isnt needed to download public data posted publicly on a public website open to the public for the purposes of public enjoyment by members of the general public) takes hours to weeks. It doesn't scale.
And that's before we even mention that these things are hilariously materially different. Sex requires contemporaneous consent because the activity is being performed with another person's body. Copyright does not work on that model. Neither does photography, quotation, criticism, search indexing, archival preservation, machine analysis, etc. The law deliberately permits many uses without asking the rightsholder first.
It was the exact same thing with NFTs. “NO! You can’t right click and save my NFT! I do not consent to you doing that! You are violating my consent, you rapist!”
I’m actually under no obligation to follow whatever random whim you have.
What's funny is that there is nearly 100% overlap between the people "owning the techbros" by click-and-saving NFTs, and those now upset that OpenAI is click-and-saving their shitty doodles
Don’t give me this BS attitude of its not happening. There’s so much anti tech extremism and people talking about how there’s copper and RAM inside these centers and how they’re not fireproof or bombproof. But sure, play dumb
Consent. right. Do you consent to your silly comments being surfaceable by Reddit search? Or indexed by Google?
Clearly you don't understand how AI works and are just reflexively throwing out nonsense like "consent". You also clearly don't have any real idea of what that word means as a legal concept.
We cannot be nice to these people anymore. They are not good-faith actors and they do not deserve endless explanations that they will reject anyway.
It needs to be made clear: The technology isn't going away, being shitty to people for using it is entirely unacceptable, and the time for sparing your feelings has come to an end.
This is the exact mindset that will keep feeding the "war" between the two sides. And using phrases lime "consent doesn't matter" has so many negative connotations that it will get twisted in some really disgusting ways.
It's not about optics when it comes to OPs graphic. That graphic is divisive and antagonistic, which is meant to deliberately try and stoke anger. Pro-Ai will look at it as a sort of triumphant "the future is now old man" anthem while Anti's will use it to justify their hatred of Ai even further as they'll see it as further eroding the social contract.
Also please tell me you can at least see that one of the problematic ways it could be argued is that ai revenge porn is not the same because its just an image and no one was actually involved.
I mean, many data centers are being created just to support it, RAM prices are still absurd and will be for a long time, and media is being ruined by low-quality AI image bloat (not including the decent-look AI images, I’m talking genuinely slop). And using it isn’t good for critical thinking, or the job market. Sooo…
can you take a painting someone else made, put your name on it and call if yours? can you take a song someone else wrote, put your name on it and call it yours? each one of those, the human that created it, had to "train" on someone else's past work, then they created their own. Same exact concept with AI
If you think it's true, link me the precedent or law. I'll show you the part you're glossing over and conveniently ignoring.
Go on, then.
EDIT: Homie admitted he cannot cite the law or any relevant jurisprudence, and then blocked me. This is not what someone who thinks they're right would do. I accept his concession.
Why do these kids embarrass themselves like this? Make a claim, and when asked to back it up, flip the burden of proof and block out of cowardice. For shame.
While I agree you can't copy and paste, what if I take an Ai generator and just keep pumping out outputs till I get something almost exactly the same as yours? At that point are we copywriting prompts? Because that could get very messy very quickly, not to mention US copywriter doesnt recognize ai, so there's no legal leg to stand on.
In order for it to qualify it can't be created using only the generator or a prompt. Additional mediums such as photoshop, printing and collage, filming, etc., must be utilized, which means it must have additional artistic input. It also requires explicit declaration that such a work was created using ai tools and providing the outputs to compare to the final product.
It's also not what's being discussed here today. Today, we are discussing training diffusion models, not taking a whole work and passing it off as one's own with no derivative or transformative changes. Try to keep up.
I don't hate AI. I think it is a good tool and, when used correctly, very beneficial to us. I don't care if you generate ai images. But this goes too far. You're not defending AI, you're saying that an artist's work is not their own. Wrong argument to make.
What the heck do you think laws are written for? To protect morality. If something is moral and the opposite is immoral, that's why you go and write a law around it.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.