photoGrant

Once again people think they can productivity their way to results as if it's a quantifiable and profitable resource. Culture, Creativity and Art are HUMAN expression of a HUMAN condition. To generate it with a computer means to create 'content' for the sake of profit. Not ART for the sake of expression. At the start of every argument reducing any human output to nothing more than a repeatable and reducible resource is the same arrogant fallacy thinking that, and anything we create just will appear in a vacuum. The worlds people benefit from standing on each others shoulders. This reduces that to the company with the biggest pockets. Otherwise, why secrets?

Everything you argue facilitates the reach of human expression. This pilfers and silences it. This plagiarism machine cannot even deal with 'current stimuli' in ANY way what so ever so it cannot express anything. It can only remember what you've told it, and it can barely do that successfully. It can't hold a fact for 2 messages. It cannot feel, it cannot predict, it cannot agree or disagree. It outputs based on master's filter and its expression based on financial agenda.

To think artists want to retain control over their own voice and ideas, and not have a company steal the aesthetics of it and sell its skeleton at a discount, and not realise the hypocrisy of trying to shift the power away from the individual to a private single for profit company is just... Beautifully poetic in its own right.

> the invention of the phonograph decimated live musicians

What history have you been smoking? The invention of a technology that could mechanically reproduce the message of an artist only sought to spread awareness and increase musical access and interest. It cannot replicate the aura of art which is why people to this day squeeze into expensive live shows. You argue the phonograph has completely cleaned live music off the table. It hasn't. It facilitated its growth.

You can replicate the art, but you can't create the artist. If ever I hear a balanced argument from the other side that includes the word 'aura' I'll have known they didn't just spend half a night researching these matters and deciding it's easier to remain ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

"in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics."

Your beliefs and words are stripping me of my talents, livelihood, journey, meaning, finances and goals and you're upset that I call it ignorant, uncaring and dehumanizing. Hypocritical or not, these are not my attempts at creatively insulting you. They're the smallest of reality checks you need and I have absolutely no delusion to believe you'll ever think otherwise. How YOU became a victim in this discussion lends to nothing beyond an eye roll. You still haven't uttered a word of empathy for anything that doesn't fit your position. History will appreciate these discussions and who fought for what exactly.

Now tech thinks its an expert on philosophy, history and art. Hubris is something folks should lead with more often in place of ego.

edit: It'd be real easy to conflate my response to dehumanising each other with the larger arguments at play. Continue to hunt for your 'gotchas'

Who is 'we' in your arguments. Master? And why do you think laws exist? It's to protect the rich from being burned at the stake by reality. Societal agreements go both ways. You think it's to feign appeasement to the little piggie complaints and get them back to growing for your market day? You continue to dehumanise 'them' -- your neighbour into nothing more than an idiot who takes from your bottom line. Humans aren't a one way street to a compute problem, friend.

I'll simplify this for everyone;

(misquoted you originally, sorry!)

If you take a box and fill it with dog shit. You're more than welcome to chop, blend, dilute, fling or even eat this shit. But in the end, it's still Pepper's Poop.

Sell it like it isn't. Add sprinkles. It's Pepper's Poop.

When Pepper dies. Do you think the model is going to invent Gold all of a sudden?

I have no desire to be sneaky. Creatively pointed. Please report me if needed, I have no qualms exercising my ability to express humanity when someone attempts to dehumanise. Especially if I can do so in a way that opens up an avenue for reflection. Most just double down. Being silenced on this platform is an expected conclusion, not a concern.

I don't play football unless the goalposts remain stationary.

If this was all done in the open as hoped, as promised and the worlds scientists were in pursuit of the same goal, I'd accept these arguments all day and keep my ignorant mouth shut. But to lie and say otherwise goes against the timeline of history we're all a part of. OpenAI lied about its openness. It then aligned militarily. It didn't offer to remove your data before this came into effect, did it? Source me if I'm wrong.

A private company securing the worlds resources physically, financially and informationally and selling it to anyone of its choosing or not -- is the true startling contempt for human life, especially those that follow along without an ounce of critical thinking.

My recommendation, civil or otherwise is to at least feign a moment of empathy and understanding for your fellow man in order to balance an otherwise repeat cliche that fundamentally argues for self. An inability to empathise first stops any ability to listen to, or accept alternative opinions to your own.

I'm not sure what's more insulting overall, my sarcasm or your immediate jump to insult any artist based on the fact they're outraged about the financial fall out of this situation and not take them on the merit of every other argument included. Philosophical, moral and otherwise. It's fingers in ears and it's assuming the only thing artists care about is the money leaving their pocket.

We can think a little beyond that cave. It's inclusion in the argument is because it is the guiding star for the greedy to nullify the realities. Visual AI has revealed the trickster.

> No individual is all that creative

It's nice to meet you too. I promise, you underestimate your neighbours.

I'll start caring about my fellow humans rights when I see each and everyone one of their tax returns. Until then my assumptions will appease my ability to remain ignorant.

As per usual, money thinks of a human as a commodity for sale, not a neighbour being exploited or livelihood being stripped.

If you think throwing life into a black box and consuming its results will improve productivity and enhance creativity. You're forgetting the only thing we feed this thing is 'results'. You're drinking the piss from a million artists and thinking it's fresh water. Eventually this filtered, censored source of creativity is AI material being used and creating for AI, not humans -- because humans quit being a source of material and nothing more than a requester.

The short sightedness of believing you can commodify the human spirit is the most incredulous shit I've ever seen.

The financial few have created a battle against the very world that have put them there. It might not be clear where the exit is, but it's clear the incentives are fundamentally opposite. Something, something Emperor's new clothes

Indeed, a tale as old as time. If only this inept thinking could extend beyond short term financial gain. When (not if) the average Luddite begins to reject and disconnect from AI wholly whether productively or emotionally, who exactly is purchasing or consuming this soulless and useless content? It's as computer-centipede as it gets. The only use is to work against the benefit of society, truth and progress. It's a walled garden that can tell local citizens the truth and adversary's a series of lies. It's shown zero progress in years beyond a navigable encyclopedia of instructions only made more convoluted and confusing. The answers to AGI are not to chase complexity of what you've created. No one is blind.

The same executives that would argue and protect the IP of any major company out there right now are somehow saying the complete opposite when it reduces down to the individual. If this hasn't revealed the hypocrisy of thinking when chasing the money, nothing will. It's the first in a series of realities people are facing with this concept of AI. That in truth it is nothing more than a financial and informational bait and switch. Screw the lot who haven't revolted in pursuit of the fellow man and have instead sold their soul to a kleptocracy of babyfaced bullshitters

I asked this question a few days ago and the responses, arrogance and ignorance was astounding. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709

I promise, if I'm here asking this week, there's millions more that will be asking next week. Carving out the labour market has more consequences than increasing productivity. It destroys culture, society and a will to live. Wise up.

edit: And before the inevitable responses begin pouring in. Even the argued ethically sourced material scooped up from Shutterstock, et al. is still shrouded in dark patterns, hidden automatically enabled opt-in removal of rights, automated payments to tie up the fact you accepted payment as part of the argument in court. It all stinks, it should all tumble.

edit2: People are great at recognising patterns. I've frequented this platform daily for almost a decade. The speed of engagement in this thread and the fact it doesn't exist on the front page... or the second shows, once again -- the strings can suck it. Stifling reality doesn't change it.

Financially rich. Morally bankrupt. Thanks Sham Altman.

Indeed this is footage, but this is far from the world's first. Fun watch.

Likely a response to I-SOON.

They did the same accidentally to the co-founder

https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/1754610843361362360

Once I'd seen that, I doubled down on my self hosted GitLab and never looked back. GitHub can be a mirror for public good, but it's no castle I want to be a prisoner of.

You never even read the post enough to engage on the core topic. Keep confusing yourself. The original question was how to find out, you've done all but conflate your issues with my concerns. I quoted the one portion that expressed your position more than the paragraphs of diatribe trying to hide it. Good luck, goodbye!

I have an image in my head of a robot drone about to kamikaze its way into my body and I'm holding up a robots.txt print out hoping it'll read it.

Great catch on the usernames thing. Won't unsee now. This place truly is as bubbled as any other faction of ideas.

I'll see you in court. The law will change.

When you have the ability to even debate the complexities of film photography versus digital and the dual nature this medium falls under versus digital which I'll remind you again is under physical, and IP -- try again. But you can only argue under the merits of what you know and you've shown it to be very little.

I do appreciate your efforts but you've done nothing but double down on your ignorance on the matter.

If you can argue it's ok to protect computational lithography, you can protect me doing the exact same thing in the darkroom. But you don't know what you don't know. I'll leave it here, there's no ground to be made, even if you try to conflate a basic issue with paragraphs more.

> And I would argue that at this point in history those who claim to be artistic creators are not enriching this world

Extremely telling. Truly, say no more.

Friend, I have agreed with your core issue, you have just assumed my work has already been otherwise 'bought' and argued this fact the entire marathon.

Your assumptions of what I'm trying to get at, are what you're arguing against. My position hasn't changed, it's only been explained to you countless times and in many ways.

I will state it again and you're welcome to argue with the below sentence, but again, otherwise you're continuing to play games.

I have a concern that any work that I, or my fellow artists put into this world that is of a physically created nature. Tangible and unique, cannot be protected from the vacuum of OpenAI and their military contracts the same way I can protect them from being copied and hung in every Hilton Hotel. How do I protect myself from contributing to a pirate and their weapon creation? Tell me I can't, anything beyond the brainstem is an externalisation and fair game to anyone and I'll tell you artists will accept that notion and quit enriching this world with anything that adds value vs the capitalistic endeavour to extract it. Culture becomes an algorithm, humans become farm animals. Enjoy your world.

The content is trained upon styles and techniques and aesthetics built upon by artists in the context of history. Society and those current realities mixed with the ability to conceptualize the future and enact change in ways that reach humans hearts not minds are the stimuli to the artists art. These factors are paramount to a healthy and abundant culture that embraces ideas and creative expression as they speak to the life of humanity and its existence in history.

AI Video is empty, cheap, stolen. It can replicate and regurgitate old ideas into a series of novel but empty new ones. But they do not incorporate present stimuli, the human connection and empathy to its own situation/geography. These break the growth of culture into nothing more than content. Farm feed. Devoid of soul, lacking of modern relevancy, devoid of political anything.

AI will produce content, movies, songs, it will produce memes about them, and comments about their meaning. But humans will look at it from the outside. Not connected at all.

AI steals culture and sells it back with a firewall, a filter and a price

Thank you so very much. I'll be looking into using these tools as part of our deliverables workflow. It's as much as I assumed but I'd have hoped for more understanding and dialog on the matter, you're the first to offer anything of value beyond failing to understand. Appreciated!

You make yourself very clear, you have no intent of understanding my position. I appreciate you trying to troll, but my concern as I've stated for the umpteenth time is that I would like to know if my personal work on my personal website was somehow vacuumed up into a training dataset for profit and war of which I had no knowledge, compensation, or information of.

This isn't a hard and difficult thing to understand and yet you remain prudent in assuming because I'm not Netflix, YouTube, Microsoft, I don't have a right to protect the misuse of my material unless licensed or otherwise agreed.

Really, argue on the merit of my points not the ignorance of your claims.

And of course I would ask here. Asking artists only results in nods of agreement, I don't need the echochamber of impasse, but I suppose I hadn't realised the scale of pseudo-intellectual self labelled technocrats that try to do anything other than understand the problem.

Conventional weapons are not the future. Cyber warfare is not the future.

But computable reactive weapons are.

The answer is compute/efficiency is the weapon of the future. The faster and more efficient you are, the quicker your decisions end theirs.

FLOPS are the new gigajoules.

Nukes are a snooze factor. Like killing a spider with a boulder. The fearful new arms race is expanding your compute and restricting theirs. Death by a thousand cuts. Compute is King

You haven't purchased my work, please stop saying you have. Your argument ends there despite your words continuing far beyond.

I appreciate you arguing so far past me that you fail to see we agree on half of your points. I'll leave it there. Suggest less, empathise more -- you might find a halfway point where both people have valid points.

> We don't want you to try and dictate how we consume it what we think about it or where it's used after we purchased it.

I didn't sell it to you. That's the whole point. Buy it? Take it. But you've so far missed my argument that you should start again. Art doesn't exist in a 'purchased' state by the entire world. Otherwise, Netflix is free. Please, stop trying to school me.

It is a physical property manifested from a collection of thoughts. Much like anything else we create. You wrote a lot but you accept and reject my premise in the same breath because goalposts and personal agenda.

You also seem to miss the fact that I have no concern over thoughts. My concern is over property and military use.

I absolutely hope once copyright expires, and my ability to create more based on the sale of previous runs its course, the work should benefit the public. My distinction is that benefiting the public/society at large is an acceptable argument. But it is not the same as benefiting a military. That is not benefiting a greater good, it benefits the good of the group who wish to exploit it. I argue there should be a distinction... but only for long enough that I have a pulse. Beyond that, I'm dead.

Also, I ask you this. At what point in your mind does something created go from 'manifested thought' to 'physical'.

Why is a bolt physical but a painting not? Why is a roll of film nothing more than thoughts but a car wheel is property?

If we are to reduce this to a vacuum in which we don't exist in a modern society with expectations and agreements, I'd accept your philosophising. Otherwise it's a distraction to the issue. No one has these arguments when their car is stolen. The purchase and disappearance of that car are nothing but manifestations of thoughts according to you.