I mean, I understand you need to make money but if you choose to use the name of an ancient Greek Goddess as your trade name, you can’t get exclusivity. You just can’t.

You should not be allowed to do DMCA searches on words that are over two thousand years old.

Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.

Or the novelty of AI-created art will wear off and we’ll go on with our lives.

See, now THIS is rentrophy.

If someone ever made dummy cartridges they would sell nicely, I suspect.

@Num10ck Put a black cartridge where the color cartridge should be?

It would create jobs.

That’s thing, though. That’s the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren’t doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.

If you use an AI as just another tool, that’s one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.

Yeah, but detectability isn’t a new question, is it? It’s just a twist on the old question of “Did someone else create it other than the guy who claimed it?”

Well, computer forensics IS a thing. Computers keep a record of everything done on them, and if it comes down to a lot of money at stake and a lawsuit then those computers can be looked at.

Funny, because photography is actually the precedent on this. A monkey took a picture, it was not copyrightable.

I’d advise you to keep a record of your creative process here, because it may come down to how many prompts you used to steer it.

@nous I figure a judge wouldn’t count prompts because they are basically commissions. If you commission an artist to create a piece for you, it’s still their piece. If a corporation commissions the artist to create the piece, they can own it as work-for-hire, which is EXACTLY what Thaler was trying to claim in this case, but they aren’t the creator.

If you can replace “AI” with “Professional Artist” and you wouldn’t be eligible for your amount of input, then it’s not copyrightable.

@foggy There’s another article that clarifies the decision. Works created by a human with AI assistance are copyrightable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

Works created solely by AI, like if all the human did was enter a prompt into ChatGPT or Midjourney, are not copyrightable.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Gaming isn’t as bad as cryptomining farms and the stuff required by an AI server, man. You need to go look up some of the load on this stuff.

And you still haven’t gotten back to me on how AI improves society. People too lazy to learn to draw can say they drew something they actually didn’t? That’s not improvement.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Anyone could create art before. Anyone could edit photos. And with practice, they could become good. Artists aren’t some special class of people born to draw, they are people who have honed their skills.

And for people who didn’t want to hone their skills, they could pay for art. You could argue that’s a change but AI is not gonna be free forever, and you’ll probably end up paying in the near future to generate that art. Which, be honest, is VERY different from “making art.” You input a direction and something else made it, which isn’t that different from just getting a friend to draw it.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Out of curiosity, how is the world appreciably different now that AI exists?

@SCB The Luddites gave way to Unions, which yes were more effective and gave us a LOT of good things like the 8 hour work week, weekends, and vacations. Technology alone did not give us that. Technology applied as bosses and barons wanted did not give us that. Collective action did that. And collective action has evolved along a timeline that INCLUDES sabotaging technology.

Things like the SAGAFTRA/WGA strike are what’s going to get us good results from the adoption of AI. Until then, the AI is just a tool in the hands of the rich to control labor.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer interesting you mention stopping burning coal. Because mining and burning coal is bad for the environment.

Guess what else is bad for the environment? Huge datacenters supporting AI. They go through electricity and water and materials at the same rates as bitcoin mining.

A human being writing stuff only uses as much energy as a human being doing just about anything else, though.

So yes, while ending coal would cost some miners jobs, the net gain is worth it. But adopting AI in standard practice in the entertainment industry does not have the same gains. It can’t offset the human misery caused by the job loss.

@new_acct_who_dis Yeah, but that wouldn’t hurt as much because all the people out of work would still have healthcare.

AI displaced creatives will lose their healthcare.