Sure, random comments of insignificant value like these will probably continue being created. Valuable content, though? That's a different story.
"This is why we can't have nice things." is a saying that accurately reflects what could happen if the "AI" community doesn't stop behaving like uncivilized barbarians. Personally, I'd prefer to have nice things.
My priors tell me that great art will continue to be made, both with and without these new tools; and that people will simply re-adjust to a new normal of sorts.
What are you suggesting exactly? That all the creators are so weak-willed that they simply stop creating? Or are you implying that they are going to all go live on some sort of "no-internet-allowed" island together?
Because it's not intelligent. It's definitely artificial, but it's not intelligent in any meaningful sense of the term. "Automatic Interpolation" or something similar would be a far more suitable use for the acronym.
>What are you suggesting exactly?
Noone is going to spend time making something if the next guy immediately goes "You made this? ... I made this." like clockwork. Even moreso if someone was making something professionally.
If we do see creators and inventors go away, it would be because of their own volition and desire to find greener pastures worthy of their time rather than "AI" usurping their jobs.
If it's artists, I think you are underestimating the impact a "real" author has on a given work. We're all human, and art tends to be about capturing a shared experience. This means the viewer of the art can make assumptions about the author's humanity and (sometimes) connect with them emotionally in this regard. It's about communication _with people_ - not with an unfeeling language model that is very clearly trying to win a game of sorts.
So the artists incorporate these tools, some of them don't, new genres form, and new ideas are captured. All the artist has to do is assume they still have an audience (they will, because humans want to see art from other humans).
I think the biggest problem is that indeed, _other people_ will use these tools to trivialize the works of others and conceal the origin. But again, the artist can just ignore this world - as before. It's not like copyright law was actually ever protecting them anyways. Same argument applies to licensing on Github code; while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution.
The most pragmatic solution before, and now, was always "don't post things on the public internet for free if you don't want theft to occur". This is a lesson people keep having to learn since Napster.
In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great! I don't really see that magically solving other issues (surplus of artists, shortage for the labor they would be good at), however.
They are; you can't use or incorporate an artist's products in public without their permission (aka a license).
>In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great!
That's the thing: Artists are charging and the "AI" community doesn't give a shit.
Sooner or later, that house of "AI" cards is going to come crashing down with noone to blame but the "AI" community themselves.
>while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution.
Exactly. Sooner or later, someone who's been maintaining that one single block holding up all of modern humanity is going to say "fuck this and fuck you all" and leave everything to come crashing down; no, we can't blame him either.
We've already seen creators disgruntled with insufficient compensation (putting aside whether their demands were just) taking their wares and leaving for greener pastures to the dismay of everyone else. Didn't need "AI" for that, either.
I think we are mostly in agreement actually. Just that you are indicating this will amount to the majority of creators and I and the sibling commenter are seeing the world as it is, not as it should be. Realistically? I mean come on - think about it. Hustlers will hustle, sure. But artistic expression and creation doesn't _only_ happen because of money - it happens because some people would rather die than do anything else.
This is what I'm talking about, and what the sibling comment is talking about. I put all of my code on GitHub. These are my creations. If I wanted to be compensated for them, I wouldn't have posted it online. I use permissive licenses and don't need any credit for my work. This is humility - there is nothing special about my work per se. I mean, sure, maybe there is - but it isn't anything that I am the only in the world to pull off. Further, by putting the code online and giving it away - you are democratizing a creation that shouldn't really by _owned_ by anyone, in my opinion.
I gather you don't share that view - but you should know there are a lot of us out there. It's called having passion; and I don't know of any other way to accomplish things at work or for free.
Releasing something free-as-in-libre as a specific concept is irrelevant; I would publish certain things free-as-in-libre, others free-as-in-beer but with certain rights reserved, others commercially with certain rights reserved, others with all rights reserved. It depends on what it is I'm doing.
Insisting on releasing everything free-as-in-libre just because it's libre is, as far as I'm concerned, nonsensical. Licensing is a tool to be used appropriately, like any other tool; it's a means to an end and not the end itself.
>It's called having passion
I argue there is nothing as demotivating as having your passion denied by others shamelessly taking what you made and doing whatever with it without a single care for you, the creator.
Abiding by licenses is a matter of respecting the fact that someone, somewhere took their time to make something. The least you could do is respect their wishes, be they libre or closed, free or commercial, or anywhere in-between.
I'm willing to bet that a majority of the artists lambasting "AI" stealing and abusing their creations for training materials would be happy to provide training materials if they were respected and compensated for their time instead of getting treated like free real estate.
How is that "having your passion denied"? You can just ignore it, and then you're in the same position you would be in if they hadn't done it, which seems to be the alternative you have in mind anyway.
> I mean, sure, maybe there is - but it isn't anything that I am the only in the world to pull off. Further, by putting the code online and giving it away - you are democratizing a creation that shouldn't really by _owned_ by anyone, in my opinion.
That just sounds like slavery with extra steps.
Also, Art doesn't just come out of a LLM -- it depends on the times and conditions of the artist. "AI" models suffocate all of it.
Yes they will.
Not everyone is like you who will collapse into anger and outrage at the thought of other people creating new things based on your work.
I do not care if anyone uses any of my intellectual property that I have ever created.
In fact, I would be flattered if people use the stuff that I have built to them make newer cooler things.
I support anyone and everyone "stealing" any intellectual property that I have every created.
Instead I am refuting your completely false statement of"Noone is going to spend time making something" that I was responding to.
So great, you agree with me that yes there are people like me who will continue to produce intellectual property and release it to the public.
> Particularly those who create things for a living.
I creating things for a living to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
So yes, I speak for those people and am totally fine with people stealing my work.
What? What do you call literally the entire training dataset of stable diffusion, dalle, gpt3, and gpt4? You think they compensated anyone that went into the dataset? Did you get paid for your comment, because guess what? Your comment will end up in the gpt4.1 or gpt5 model.
Training data will likely continue to include everything public on the internet. Not everyone will stop posting things online for free, therefore humans will still generate training data for models.