Our little instance is closing to 6 months of operations and it occurs to me I never really asked for some open feedback from our peeps. So I wanted to start a discussion to see your concerns and comments in general. So tell me, in the context of the divisions by zero, what bothers you, what pleases you, what would you like to see improved.
Feel free to share your thoughts about anything.
MLAIs need to be trained before they can be used, and the data an MLAI might need depends on the type of AI. The diffusion AIs often rely on artwork which mostly is gathered from artists trying to make a living off of their hobby - the professional "hobby" artists kinda being the forerunners of what many envisioned AI would hopefully lead to in the future.
Now, if we carelessly use these artist's artwork, copyright or not, we might remove or inhibit their ability to live off what they love, which would be a giant blow against those of us fighting for AI as a relief of forced work and enabler of personal freedom.
My concern is therefore, in a world where many use AI without consideration for enshittfication of others lives, do the models often used on dbzer0's communities just scrape the internet of training material, or do those who make and sanitize the datasets ask the artists for permission/use openly available (using the equivalent of the unlicense) material instead?
dbzero0 is a instance which represents copyleft, but my impression is that it also represents the want for more personal control and being able to do whatever one wants. Though, I'm unsure if the general community consensus is to do whatever one wants even at the expense of other common people (everyone for themselves, kinda like the big corps do), or if the community consensus is to do whatever one wants while making sure that others also have the ability to do so (FOSS, commissioning the little man instead of buying from big corps, donating money or labor to small communities instead of being the product of some large social media platform).
I really do like being part of dbzer0, but this question on the instance's stance has held me back from recommending the instance in my circle of friends.
I guess it comes down to whether AI should have the same rights as humans, or rather those of a tool.
The idea is not to stop making diffusion art, but to limit it a little, so the tool cannot be used to shamelessly copy a distinctive artists style without consent. Similar limitations would also be healthy for other disciplines, except perhaps those which generally are not considered hobbies or recreation.
And you are right about relevancy to the post, though I think it's good to talk about this as it is a technology which soon will fill a considerable amount of our lives, and the instance kinda focuses on it.
Assuming copyright is ethical to begin with, you can't copyright things like style or genre (in the US). Artists that complain about their style being "stolen" are overreaching to begin with.
I remember an Artist in the Furry Fandom complaining and inciting harassment over people using their "closed species" without buying it in an auction despite the fact that species can't be copyrighted and they were denied trademark as well. So when it comes to these types of manbabies who get upset and cry over someone is drawing something that looks too much like their imaginary friends they should not be honored and treated with validity, they should be laughed at. It's a similar story here with styles.
Styles and Species cannot be copyrighted and trying to make them exclusive is too far and could be considered gatekeeping. They're only being like this because AI art just like Autotune in music back in the day is seen as "cheating" and doesn't make them sound as unreasonable and unhinged, if they did the same thing with an artist who had a similar style to theirs it would seem much more unreasonable, and there would be no debate.