Comment by earthnail
1 day ago
I find it interesting that you echo the concerns of people who defend artists’ copyright claims, while stating that you are very pro AI in terms of copyright.
It’s a very emotionally loaded space for many, meaning most comments I read lean to the extremes of either argument, so seeing a comment like yours that combines both makes me curious.
Would be interesting to hear a bit more about how you see the role of copyright in the AI space.
At first it will obviously make it easier for artists to create what they want at the expense of doing everything yourself which will take the fun out of it. At first we might see some raise in the money some people can make, but as I said the choice artists will have in the end is being someone who draws pictures for a machine to be trained on.
I also think AI is the next evolution of humanity.
Not GP, though I agree with their views, and make my money from copyrighted work (writing novels).
The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with.
This is why public libraries, free galleries, etc are so important.
Historically, art has been ‘best’ when the process of its creation has been heavily funded by a wealthy body (the church or state, for example).
‘Copyright’, as a legal idea, hasn’t existed for very long, relative to ‘subsidizing the creation of excellent training data’.
If ‘excellent training data for educating minds’ genuinely becomes a bottleneck for AI (though I’d argue it’s always a bottleneck for humanity!), funding its creation seems a no-brainer for an AI company, though they may balk at the messiness of that process.
I would strongly prefer that my taxes paid for this subsidization, so that the training data could be freely accessed by human minds or other types of mind.
Copyright isn’t anything more than a paywall, in my opinion. Art isn’t for revenue generation - it’s for catalyzing revenue generation.
"The role of the artist has always been to provide excellent training data for future minds to educate themselves with."
We are not aware of the implications of this sentence. This is it. The only "source" is play. Joyful play.