So, maybe, just maybe, listen to the artists, listen to the people with decades of experience in that field[...]

Regulation is all I’ve ever advised. The problem is very simple: IP infringement. Full stop.
We need to legislate better IP laws that disallow dataset spiders from sourcing from non-permissive data. And then we need to prosecute those who ignore that law, in such a way as to compensate those that were infringed upon.

That analogy breaks down because while guns are purpose-made for lethal ballistics, the AI generators are not purpose-made for art theft, nor was the drum machine purpose-made for playing back samples of someone else’s music.

The datasets are public domain. It’s map/topology information and real world object photography (like desks, chairs, swords, appliances, vehicles, etc). One is provided by the US government, the other is provided by a university. I include disclaimers and the license is entirely permissive and free for commercial use.

You are MORE than welcome to point out ANY content I’ve EVER generated that used someone else’s uncredited work. I would LOVE to see that.

AI-composed music didn’t even try because they knew they’d get smacked down.

Spot on. I think Kotaku comments are a bad representation of anything other than Kotaku commenters, so I’m kinda of the opinion that most people seem to agree with this idea. Once they get past the initial “who got fucked over by WHAT? Fuck that thing!” reaction which is an entirely reasonable one.

“People are responding to this like they do autotune: without knowing shit and thinking they know everything.”

I guess I just don’t know what civility looks like, Mr. Ass from Elbows.

Ah, that’s pretty interesting! I would have thought that AI translation would be pretty bad, so that tracks with my assumption. But I am notoriously unimpressed by “the best we’ve ever seen”. Or, at least in my opinion, I’m very comfortable NOT conflating “the best we’ve ever seen” with “good”. So when someone brings…

It’s okay! Not everyone understands analogies on the first go. Give it another read and see if you can’t try to understand what analogy I’m MAKING, instead of whatever analogy you THINK I’m making.

I mean - to be clear: the current moral outrage is NOT about putting artists out of business, it’s about the mass theft of their intellectual property by abuses of trust. The current moral outrage is not only righteous, but easily appreciable and has simple, quick remedies.

Awww! Look everybody! Little Turbo has something to say! =D

“Y’all” can be creeping up on whatever.

So the AI is stealing from... what... not real illustrators? AutoTune can’t be used on stolen music?

I did think about that! But I was worried not enough people would know it for it to be an effective analogy.

cool story, lex. I’m sure you’re right about whatever you were on about. I’m a developer who makes games with the tech; I’m not reading your paragraphs that pretend I don’t know what I’m talking about, to make yourself feel better. You want to be civil, we can discuss our differences of thought on the tech; not it’s…

No, that would be analogous to - say - the poster design represented here in High on Life. Or the way Google’s Imagen works.

I use AI to make art for a living. If you want to split hairs about what is and is not “AI art”, you’re welcome to.

I can see why those two situations are different, yes. Can YOU see why a company might not profit from making those decisions? Maybe because the public doesn’t want mass produced “art”? And that, whenever someone starts mass-producing a type of art, it loses value to the public? And that there will still be artists…