I teach it, my background is located in my profile and my research focuses on CS education.
Scale and impact do matter, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I stand by my point that genAI is mirroring how humans learn - repetition of previously observed actions. As part of my dissertation, I argued that humans operate using 'templates', or previously established frameworks / systems. Even in higher cognitive tasks like problem solving, we rely on workflows that we were trained on previously. Soloway referred to problem solving as a mental set of "basic recurring plans" [1] and if you look at the old 1980s Usborne children's books, they required kids to retype code [2]. For creative tasks, depending on the actor's background, Method and Meisner both tell people to draw from previous experiences and observations to develop a character. This behavior is similar in many areas like music, dance, martial arts, cooking, language acquisition, etc.
I am not making an ethical argument that GenAI violating copyright is okay because that's what humans do. I'm arguing that GenAI mirrors how humans learn. We observe a behavior and attempt to recreate that behavior. The difference is that humans can extract a fraction of the behavior and utilize it as part of something larger while GenAI cannot to the degree humans do. I'm sure GenAI would struggle to recreate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" because of the two polar different visual elements of the film (cartoon and real life).
In regards to your "If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact" section, its a bit of a loaded question. One side of the conversation could state that GenAI is helping many people that do not have confidence in their creative ability to produce their ideas, while the other could state its making it harder for artists.
Yes, it absolutely is hurting artists and I fully support the recent writer's strike over AI concerns. But I do not believe that diminishes how the mathematical models used in GenAI mirror our own skill acquistion.
In my view it encouraged nihilism and apathy instead of developing ethical frameworks. From that lens, I feel teaching a course might be more limiting in the range of heuristics you’re willing to accept or endorse. Though happy to accept your personal experience.
A paper that comes to mind often from HCI is “do artifacts have politics” which looks at the impacts of technologies divorced from creator intent. I feel that’s similar here.
You’re not wrong that about the mechanism that it’s created. But I would argue that’s the least important part, ethically anyway.
Saying “strip mining with heavy industrial machines mimics laborers using shovels” is true to a degree, but but perhaps not that important piece of information.
I’m not saying you’re making that argument. I guess im just not totally sure the outcome you were looking for in sharing your original comment. I hear your comparison and agree with it and that it is interesting to view in that lense. I wasn’t sure if there was a deeper intent in sharing it.
I have a pretty neutral stance to GenAI, mostly due to personality however it also stems from my background as well as recognizing students' interests. Prior to CS Education, my master thesis involved computer vision for catching "high valued targets", but was also funded to help minimize human trafficking. I have students in my classes that are very interested in going to work for defense companies like Lockheed and Raytheon, and I have others that are really interested in using AI for "social good" areas like healthcare and education. I try to have a neutral stance because: A) I hated the professors that I took that would use their lecture time to express their political opinions, B) opinions that are opposite to a student may otherwise discourage them from learning the material, and C) my primary focus is to make sure they learn the material and do it "right".
When I started teaching, I used the analogy that if they go on to write the software for the life support machine I'm hooked up it, it WORKS. If someone wants to go on to use AI to create weapons, I can't stop them anymore than I can force them to read a chapter or convincing the person beside on the highway to slow down. I just work to ensure they do it correctly (which includes being mindful of the ethical ramifications of using algorithm X for task Y).
What would an ethical framework for designing AI for a drone even look like? I have no idea, nor is it something I'm interested in delving into. I got out of face recognition for those reasons. Does an ethical framework for GenAI require the same elements, a fraction of them, or a completely different set of guidelines? Who gets to decide them - the 'experts' in AI, the government, society as a whole?
Personally, I've made the comment that the current opinions on regulating AI are like "everyone trying to be AI's parent". We're never going to agree because everyone has a different opinion on the "right" way to handle AI. Plus, human cognition is so unknown and illogical that we may never figure out a way to perfectly replicate human intelligence. I instead try to stay somewhat optimistic and marvel at the math we've used to create "AI".
It actually is.
It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do.
It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.
Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.
And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)
And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.
This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!")
In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden).
The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities.
They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.
I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks.
And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it.
There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.
OK, say every artist gets $100, one time (exact amount varies but would not be much). Everything's properly licensed according to you and the artists are essentially no better off, and the models are now good enough to create new training data for the future and artists never see any more money.
You've won, I guess?
People are already working on completely copyright safe models and those models can still destroy the entire art market.
Ex: adobe has a gen AI model, trained on content that they own.
What now artists? Can't hide behind fake outrage over infringement for that model. But that model can still end the art industry.
I wonder what the new argument will be then when fully non infringing models destroy the market regardless.
Regardless, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea but it's definitely a start, especially when the current reality is that they're just stealing all the artist's shit and everyone gets $0 instead of $100. As you said, artists are no better off in that universe, but the worst case possible for them is what's happening right this very moment, where they just get fucked over with 0 compensation.
The closest thing you could do is e.g. have a second model that does something novel like create a 3D model from a 2D image and then you try to animate the model and a third model verifies the quality of the output. This then allows you to selectively reinforce the 2D model using information from the 3D model but this isn't simply generating more training data.
I honestly can't follow your argument. Doing something silly doesn't make you the underdog.
Incidentally yes, training AI on AI output will work fine, as long as you have a signal of quality. For example, upvotes in a subreddit would work fine. But that's not crucial to my point, which is that what OP is asking for will accomplish exactly nothing.
If you sold the output of a true random number generator, eventually you'd also by definition be reselling copyrighted works without permission. The courts wouldn't mindlessly say "no more random numbers", and I doubt that they'll do the same for GenAI, especially given the recent decisions that are headed that way.
In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art?
No, I don't think that's the case.
Instead it is widespread. It is everywhere.
> depending on the scales in question
The scale argument supports me, not you.
This type of "infringement" is everywhere.
> reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else?
Even this is common. The online independent artist commissions market is full of people doing commercial fan art commissions.
Thinking about this even more, I am now wondering if "infringing" works might actually be a majority of the online/independent commissions market. Maybe.
And yet, nobody cares.
That's a disingenuous take of my comment at best, the equivalent to my scenario is a bunch of unrelated individuals with small boats going out into whatever lake is nearest to them and fishing. Even if you put all of them together and counted how many fish the hobby fishermen catch, it's still nowhere near the scale of the commercial fisheries, which is why they're treated differently both by society at larger but also legally.
Same thing with these AI models, Dall-E and all the other ones have probably generated more images than all of humanity has in its entire history so far, and if not quite yet they're definitely gonna get there sooner rather than later. They can generate dozens if not hundreds of images in a split second, whereas a single artist (or even many artists collectively) can't.
> And yet, nobody cares.
I think we've already established that, because scales absolutely matter for most things. If you want to be an absolutist about it, sure be my guest, but I think in reality the large majority of people are fine when your average Joe Schmoe the artist makes a commission on a random Disney character, whereas they definitely would NOT be okay with a massive conglomerate like Disney stealing Joe Schmoe's original art and repurposing it without compensating Joe, because there's an inherent power disbalance between the two and the consequences of that power disparity matters.
I mean, Disney does have every right to go after Joe for his commissions if they really wanted to, similarly to how Nintendo is hyper aggressive with taking down anything relating to their IPs. It's just not really worth it for most companies, they will absolutely go for another company trying to pull the same shit though, as can be seen with the NYT case.
Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.
A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications.
Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.
The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.
If you’re making an ethical argument “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is.
If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact. Who does it help the most who does it hurt the most? Is your argument favoring equality of access or outcome? Who is the most vulnerable in the situation and how will it impact them?
> I cover generative AI
Wait, are you teaching the class or taking it?