Technology

58303 readers

9 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

564

The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal (as well as training any kind of AI on copyrighted content) (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst.

You could say that about literally all art - no artist can name and attribute every single influence that played even the smallest effect on the work created. Say I commissioned an image of an anime man in a french maid uniform in a 4 panel pop art style. In creating it at some level you are going to draw on every anime image you've seen, every picture of a french maid uniform, every 4 panel pop art image and create something that's a synthesis of all those things. You can't name and attribute every single example of all of those things you have ever seen, as well as anything else that might have influenced you.

Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person.

...and this is the crux of it - it's not anything related to the actual content of the image, it's simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that's only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Even if it is dirivitive it’s unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.

Again, the argument is it's nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be "art" by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You could say that about literally all art

Except I couldn't. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity's art output to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person's text prompt.

They're just not the same thing at all.

The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

...and this is the crux of it - it's not anything related to the actual content of the image, it's simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that's only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Yes it has nothing to do with the content of the image. I never claimed otherwise. In fact AI art sometimes being indistinguishable from human made art is part of the problem. But we're not just talking about automating someone's job. We're talking about automating someone's passion. Automating someone's dream career. In an ideal world we'd automate all the shitty jobs and pay everyone to play guitar, paint a portrait, write a book, or direct a film. Art being made by AI won't just take away jobs for creatives, it'll sap away the drive we have as humans to create. And when we create less our existence will be filled with even more bleakness than it already is.

Again, the argument is it's nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be "art" by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

I'm not certain I understand what you're asking. But If the human is the one making the decision on where to put the pixel then yeah that would be fine. But at no point am I arguing about whether or not AI art is "art". That would just be a dumb semantic argument that'd go nowhere. I'm merely discussing why I believe AI art to be unethical. And the taking away work from creatives point is only one facet as to why I do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can't draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

This is basically trying to argue there's only 1 correct way to make "art", which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn't art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. "Expression" can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can't draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

Never claimed it wasn't an opinion. And I fully acknowledge that tools can make creating art easier. Hell, I even support the use of machine learning tools when making art. When used as tools and not as a means of creating art wholesale they can enable creativity. But, I'm sorry, writing a text prompt for an AI to produce an image is not making art (for the person writing the prompt). It's writing a prompt. In the same way that a project manager writing a brief for a contract artist to fullfil is also not creating the art. The AI is producing the art (and by extension the artists who created the works the AI was trained off of). Your friend with aphantasia is not.

This is basically trying to argue there's only 1 correct way to make "art", which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn't art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. "Expression" can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

Again, I never said any form of art was invalid. Not even AI art. Nor do I think AI art isn't art. AI art is perfectly capable of creating something worthwhile by means of its content. It's basing it's output on worthwhile works of art created by people after all. I'm merely arguing AI art is unethical. If you made a mural out of the blood of children you murdered it'd still be art. But it sure as shit wouldn't be ethical.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Except I couldn’t. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity’s art output

The big differences there are whether it's a person or a machine and just how much art one can digest as inspiration. Again, reference my example of a commission above - the main difference between a human and an AI making it is whether they look up a couple dozen examples of each element to get a general idea or 100 million examples of each element to mathematically generalize the idea, and the main reason the number of examples and power requirements need to be so different is that humans are extremely efficient pattern developing and matching machines, so efficient that sometimes the brain just fills in the pattern instead of bothering to fully process sensory inputs (which is why a lot of optical illusions work).

to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person’s text prompt.

At a level, "churning out an image to best satisfy some random person's" description is essentially what happens when someone commissions a work or when producing things to spec as part of some project. They don't generally say "just draw whatever you are inspired to" and hope they like the result. This is the thing that AI image generators are specifically good at, and is why I say it's about protectionism for a class of workers who didn't think their jobs could be automated away in whole or in part.

But we’re not just talking about automating someone’s job.

Except you are, you are just deeming that job "someone's dream career" as though that changes whether or not it's a job that is being automated in whole or part. Yes, it's going to hurt the market for commissioned art works and the like. Again, upset because those jobs are supposed to be immune to automation and - whoopsie - they aren't. Join the people in manufacturing, or the makers of buggy whips.

We’re talking about automating someone’s passion.

Literally no one is going to ban or forbid anyone from creating art because AI art exists.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

With all respect, your argument has a pretty obvious emotional valence. You don't care if the result is 1:1, you care that it happened in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Art can be an outlet for self expression and no one is taking that away. What's it to you if I enjoy asking an AI for art?

The fact of the matter is, capitalism has never been a good place for artists who want to follow their dream. If that's something you want, then I'd suggest supporting the end of all work for money that automation provides. Then people can truly work on whatever they care about all day and not have to worry about feeding themselves.