Hacker News Reader

Comment by oifjsidjf | Hacker News Reader

The cat is out of the box. Adapt or die.

I, as an consumer, don't care if anime/manga/textures/etc... are created via hand or AI.

I just want a good story or good entertainment.

Thus, my vote with money will go to whoever creates the best story or entertainment.

I don't care about you needing 20 hours to create a handpainted manga, I want my entertainment: and if someone who cannot draw uses AI to create a 10x better story than someone who can paint but is shit at stories...well..though luck, I don't care.

View on HN

> The cat is out of the box. Adapt or die

Probably true to some extent, but that's also why copyright laws are put in place, so there could definitely be laws made that could require licensing if you use it to generate an AI and then use it for commercial purposes.

The time-window to have the debate of if you should have such laws or not is now.

The internet is global. Idiosyncratic copyright laws tend to just get ignored. It’s illegal (in France) to post a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, but if you search “Eiffel tower at night” on Google images, you will find plenty of examples. EU database rights are a similarly toothless concept and are just ignored most of the time.

If someone sets up an AI anime shop in Mozambique, who is going to stop them?

Practically speaking, and the way things are going, I think you're absolutely right.

But theoretically, countries can ban your product if it doesn't comply with local copyright laws. That can mean that say any video game, movie or tv show made with AI generated models that break copyright laws in say US could be banned from being sold in the US.

You can even go a step further, and sanction the company, blocking all payment processors that are looking to process payment in the US from disbursing money to that company.

So in practice I think you're right, and I'd advise that artists, developers and everyone else braces themselves to it and find ways to stay marketable and relevant even in the age of AI, but in theory it's just a political thing, and if there was real will to do something about it, it could be done.

I think there is a separation between aesthetic and artistic value. Mona Lisa copies have the same aesthetic but different artistic values. I think folks who care are going to differentiate on that. edit: also, see Duchamp's Fountain

Duchamp's Fountain is a great example, because most people couldn't care less about its artistic value because they reject it for its lack of aesthetic value. Just like you don't see people gluing themselves to postmodern art which emphasizes what is artistic over what is aesthetic.

Most people don't care about what is artistic. It's the experience that matters.

AI art will be something different, and because it's so cheap it'll eradicate everything else (at least most of its mainstream exposure) That's what's interesting, to understand what we're losing and what we're gaining. I believe art is an integral part of our humanity, this radical change in art, will definitely cause a radical change in what it is to be human. I personally tend to think it'll take current capitalistic trends to the extreme. Automatically personalized optimized art for purely hedonistic entertainment. This will be what we'll mostly experience. We'll lose that fragile bridge between the islands that are our individualities that art allows. The transmission of internal mental process of one person, her unique one of a kind perception and expression experienced to some degree by another. As a way to communicate, not just to cause pleasure.

It's a huge loss IMHO. It's much more substantial than copyright issues and jobs. The artists positions in the article articulate this, for some reason quotes like: “Artists are not just a ‘style.’ They’re not a product. They’re a breathing, experiencing person,” are being read as artists being scared for their livelihood. Why not read it as it's written? As artists fearing for their humanhood?

>The cat is out of the box. Adapt or die.

That's not how it works. AI is copying/stealing from people who actually create. "Laundered legal liability" as someone here so eloquently put it. When co-pilot reproduces GPL code verbatim, it's not AI, it's just convoluted copyright infringement. I have no doubts this is happening with anime too. The so called AI is just a thief. It's not creating new works, it's copying parts of works and making a composite.

I am also a thief in all of the same ways.

When I write, I am doing nothing but laundering sentences and grammar rules from my English textbooks as well as sampling from the millions of sentences that I have read in my lifetime to compose into this comment as a response to your prompt. When I code, I heavily reference existing implementations and often only make minor stylistic changes, copying algorithms and data structures wholesale from memory. When I cook, I'm literally copying the contents of the cookbooks or cooking channels with a few minor substitutions at best.

Unfortunately, I am not brilliant enough to come up with my own algorithms, recipes, or literary flourishes. Few people are truly "creators", to be honest, and even creators build off or derive from existing work.

It doesn't copy verbatim, neither does it copy parts. Sure, if you request "Sunflowers by Van Gogh" you will get something very close to Sunflowers by Van Gogh. That's because Van Gogh produced several similar works with sunflowers, because models are notoriously overfit on those, but more importantly because you asked for it specifically; you could have asked Google and get unlimited copies of Sunflowers that are much more precise. Good luck accidentally describing Sunflowers in abstract terms, though. So, you would be responsible for plagiarism if you publish a work of art created by someone while claiming it's yours, not the model creators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com