Futurology

1776 readers

182 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

voidx@futurology.today

Lugh@futurology.today

Espiritdescali@futurology.today

AwesomeLowlander@futurology.today

he AI lab waging a guerrilla war over exploitative AI: The tools Glaze and Nightshade are giving artists hope that they can fight back against AI that hoovers internet data to train. Are they enough? (www.technologyreview.com)

submitted 7 hours ago by BaylorSwift3@futurology.today to c/futurology@futurology.today

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Navigator@jlai.lu 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with this tools is they don't protect human art, they protect human art into a capital liberal economic framework.

Artists prefers to show lesser quality of their work to the audience, because with glaze the change is noticeable as artefacts, rather than changing the way they diffuse their art.

You want justice ? Start acknowledging the fact that internet isn't anything alike physical space therefore art can and should be shared and used wieldy. Second fact is the way artists are making money is still based on art rarity, which online is just inapplicable bullshit and it's actually a form of cultural domination. It's a model made for physical works, not online ones.

[–] WormFood@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

insightful comment. just one small criticism: there are a lot of artists out there who happen to exist within this capitalist economic system, who need to sell their art for money so that they don't starve or become homeless. and these people probably don't want their art and their style to be reproducible by ai because that would threaten their ability to house and feed themselves.

I'm all in favour of abolishing intellectual property, but only as part of a broader change to our economic system that would allow artists to support themselves without having to worry about ownership. besides, these ai tools aren't really 'sharing' art, they're just allowing big tech companies to consolidate wealth and power

finally, your point about art rarity is not really relevant to the discussion, these tools are intended for people distributing digital art, not people speculating on physical art

[–] Navigator@jlai.lu 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yes they are afraid to not being able to live, but is the incentive to sell your art or die make them happy ? I doubt it.
I'm not for abolishing intellectual property. In fine artist who don't want to be share shouldn't, but the fact is most artist aren't ready to defend their art in court to get their will respected. They prefer to wait for the magical technological miracle that will save them, exactly like the rest of us.
Rarity is still a topic here, because in itself selling art online doesn't bound the file sell to the usage of the person who bought it. AI doesn't prevent artists to sell their art, but it feels like it didn't it ? Why ? Because the art is even more largely accessible to commoners and we don't want that because it is lowering the value of art. But it's just the financial value of the piece that gets to go down, not the real interesting value.