430
submitted 5 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago

God I fucking hate this braindesd AI boogeyman nonsense.

Yeah, no shit you ask the AI to create a picture of a specific actor from a specific movie, its going yo look like a still from that movie.

Or if you ask it to create "an animated sponge wearing pants" it's going to give you spongebob.

You should think of these AIs as if you asking an artist freind of yours to draw a picture for you. So if you say "draw an Italian video games chsracter" then obviously they're going to draw Mario.

And also I want to point out they interview some professor of English for some reason, but they never interview, say, a professor of computer science and AI, because they don't want people that actually know what they're talking about giving logical answers, they want random bloggers making dumb tests and """exposing""" AI and how it steals everything!!!!!1!!! Because that's what gets clicks.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

If you copy work without giving credit to it's source then you're the asshole, the rules shouldn't be any different for AI.

If you ask your friend to draw something with a vague prompt then I like to think you'll get something original more often than not, which is what the article discusses in depth: the AI will return copyrighted characters almost every time.

[-] throwafoxtrot@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 5 months ago

The rules aren't any different for AI. AI is not a legal entity, just like a pen and canvas are not. It is always about the person who makes money with facsimiles of copyrighted previous work.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

So then the people operating this AI and offering paid services are legally in the wrong and should be taken down or pay reparations to everyone they've stolen from.

[-] vithigar@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Again, that makes as much sense as holding Staedtler responsible because someone used their pencils to duplicate a copyrighted work.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

If Staedtler sampled copywritten works to create pencils that automatically steal it without attribution on demand, then yes it would be exactly like that.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So do you want to shutdown Google because I can type "spongebob squarepants" into Google images and Google with give me an image of spongebob?

Please put some thought into the implications of what you're saying outside of AI before you make a knee-jerk reaction like that.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Those images in the search results are one of three categories:

  1. Officially licensed and distributed works that Spongebob IP owners signed off on

  2. Fair use works, namely noncommercial and parody

  3. Illegal works the posters of which can be sued

Google themselves didn't create those images. Google didn't intentionally profit off of illegal works without giving credit. Google didn't post those images themselves. AI did all of those things.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

It doesn't matter if Google creates the images.

It doesn't matter if they "intend" to profit from illegal works.

It doesn't matter if they "give credit" (this is the one that's the dumbest because it just reeks of ignorance, like thinking you can use whatever works you like as long as you put a credit to them in the description)

Google showing you copywritten images when you search for them is not different than when an AI does it.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It does actually matter if Google creates the images and then sells them directly. That is what this discussion is about. If you don't want to be a part of the discussion, fuck off then.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Imagine getting this riled up over a stranger on lemmy thinking something different to you.

Maybe put the phone down, take a deep breath and go for a walk outside for a moment.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I see you've abandoned your argument to express your mental image of somebody you've never seen or heard before. I accept your resignation, then, happy to help you see the light.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Jesus christ this is the most redditor comment.

Okay buddy, I resign. So you can add another tally to your "Internet arguments won" board. I hope your mom makes extra tendies for you tonight in celebration.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
430 points (83.1% liked)

Technology

55692 readers
2658 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS