Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
view the rest of the comments
If it's artists' livelihoods you care about then you are arguing the wrong point. Copyright is not the thing that gives artists money, getting hired is. The problem is not that someone copied an artists work and used it to generate a different picture in the same style. The problem is the people who use those pictures instead of paying artists. I don't think anyone in this instance would use generated images instead of paying artists if they had that availability. The only claim that this instance is harmful to artists that has any weight is that it normalises generated images, but that's circumstantial at best.
Your problem, that artists aren't being paid, is caused by the people not hiring artists. Not some anarchists using their local models for fun. The theft happens when a would be commission gets generated instead, not when the image is processed into the model.
This is the point that you miss when you equate this and capitalists. Capitalists can afford to pay artists to create the art they want, they're just too greedy to do so.
This is at least a reasonable premise, and you seem to understand my core point: artists do real work that deserves compensation. Copyright only matters to me insomuch as it's the currently existing framework artists must operate within. I do not want that to be the case, but my wishes aren't going to change artists' reality today or tomorrow (but the day after? Maybe...).
I disagree with the "local model" argument specifically because normalization is part of the billionaires' strategy. Regular people, who make up the vast majority of users, don't know the difference between ChatGPT, Claude, and some open model hosted by their company or tech savvy nephew. Most will use them interchangeably without a second thought, because it's all a mysterious magic black box.
So while I can see the merits of goofing around at home, putting that stuff out in public is just another piece of that normalization strategy.
My other beef is that even among the open models, a fair number were still trained with data that wasn't consensually given. They benefit from the same processes that created Sora, etc. I'm sure there are people who are trying to create ethical models that can run locally, but it's harder when you can't scrape the entire library of Sony Music or deviantart.
At the end of the day, I want to ensure people (not corporations) are provided for. Capitalism is obviously no solution to that problem, but it is the problem we must soberly face today and tomorrow, and we need to be aware of how what we do, even in silly moments, can have a larger cumulative effect.
Those regular people aren't here. And If they were what would you want them to see? People arguing over "stealing" and "copyright", completely sidestepping the actual point of the conversation like Mystic was. Or people warning each other over using corporate models and replacing artists.
From now on whenever I make something AI related I'm going to say "Don't use corporate AI. Hire actual artists." As the first line to combat this. Because, as I hope you've seen, arguing on whether or not this is stealing will simply go nowhere.
These models exist, and normal people will see generated content as every other platform is full of it. Allow this one space to be about doing image generation right: "No destroying the planet or replacing humans".
As with consent. I think training falls under fair use. You aren't going to be able to get an exact replica from a model anyway so any output I consider transformative, similarly to how a human brain transforms content (although obviously the internals completely different). For me the argument that you need consent to train a model is the same as arguing you need consent to train yourself, or cover a song, or trace over an image. Yes the transformation is mechanical, but if a human was doing all those calculations by hand it would be considered art, and no-one would question if they had the right.
Slight tangent as you mentioned music. I actually like generated music. Like the sound of it. It's got the vibe of melting a bunch of different songs together to make something completely unoriginal but still different. Real music is obviously superior in every way, but when you want something like that one song that's unlike any other and you just wish it were longer, that's what generated music is for. It can't replace any actual musician but it can provide an interesting listening experience... For like an hour at a time before it becomes grating.
But the point I want to make is that generated music does not sound like music. It's something different. So arguing that it's somehow plagiarising just seems silly to me. The model transformed it. It's not the same, audibly.