Traveller, TAS, and AI

[Arkathan]

I can think of a good reason. I can make art myself rather than pay an artist to do it. Or products are now cheaper so I can buy more of them.

Many jobs that used to involve creativity are now done by machine; anyone bought curtains (drapes for our colonial cousins), carpets or rugs lately? Used to be hand crafted, now mass produced by computerised looms. What happened to all the craftsmen building cars, now they are assembled by robots and robot assistants. Will you insist your next car is assembled by hand so as not to make car workers redundant - oops too late.

No one is arguing against you pushing a make fake art button for your own use.

 

[JupiterIndustries]

No you can't you can steal other peoples art and claim it as your own

If you claim you made the original Mona Lisa. Yes. Absolutely.

If you create a derivative work, based on your understanding and perception of the Mona Lisa. No. That's not theft. If it were, George R.R. Martin would be in prison for ripping off half of human history.

 

[Arkathan]

History is not subject to copyright.
Art is.
No one wants a knock-off Mona Lisa, except for purposes of cheap props or tours.
Nothing about AI is original.
It requires someone to train it, and if that person has an agenda, it will be in the product.

 

[JupiterIndustries]

Art is.

Except under fair use.
Which is what we're dealing with here.

 

[Arkathan]

Except under fair use.
Which is what we're dealing with here.

And you already complained that Fair use can't be monetized.
No one cares what you do for personal use.

 

[JupiterIndustries]

And you already complained that Fair use can't be monetized.
No one cares what you do for personal use.

It's fair use for training the model. The output then generates something which is an original work.

You're going to be obstinate about it, that's your choice.

 

[Sigtrygg]

No you can't you can steal other peoples art and claim it as your own

Prove it is stolen. I have yet to see any proof of this often made claim.
All the legal cases and all the evidence to date has debunked this theft claim.
Artist learn by copying the art of other artists.

 

[Sigtrygg]

No one is arguing against you pushing a make fake art button for your own use.

I couldn't care less where the art in a game book comes from, after a while even the text isn't needed all that much at the table. If AI art makes a product cheaper I will buy more product, simple capitalism.

 

[Arkathan]

It's fair use for training the model. The output then generates something which is an original work.

You're going to be obstinate about it, that's your choice.

And if you want to advocate for untalented people to steal opportunities from people who have talent, that is yours.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I note that no one has challenged the carpet, rug or car making point. Humans have been losing jobs to machines since the wheel was invented.

I am happy to support Mongoose in their ethical stance, they are perhaps the most ethical game company I know of. But I don't have to agree

 

[Sigtrygg]

And if you want to advocate for untalented people to steal opportunities from people who have talent, that is yours.

This accusation is thrown around in every discussion like this,

The is no proof, none, that any theft has taken place.

Training an AI on freely available artwork is no different to teaching a room full of spotty art students by getting them to copy until they learn the basics - which is done, I have seen it for myself.

 

[Tforbes]

Many jobs that used to require lots of people doing calculations - they were called calculators - have gone the way of the dodo with the advent of computers and desktop calculators that do the maths now. I fail to see why commercial artists are a protected species.

"Before electronic calculators and computers took over, "human computers" was a real job title. These people, often women, were employed to perform complex mathematical calculations by hand or with the help of mechanical tools.

In fields like engineering, astronomy, banking, and even military operations, these human computers were essential. For example, during World War II, women were hired to calculate artillery trajectories, a task requiring immense precision and stamina. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, institutions like the Harvard Observatory employed teams of women to analyze astronomical data—these were the famous Harvard Computers"

The difference between a calculator and an artist is that there is no "right way" for art. It is entirely subjective and the creation of the artist.

If you get 1000 calculators (people not the machines) to do the same calculation you should end up with exactly the same result. There is a RIGHT ANSWER and, therefore, the only valid metric is in speed and accuracy. Changing the result by adding a "personal touch" fundamentally breaks the result.

For art, of any form, the CREATING is as important as the CREATION.

 

[Arkathan]

I note that no one has challenged the carpet, rug or car making point. Humans have been losing jobs to machines since the wheel was invented.

I am happy to support Mongoose in their ethical stance, they are perhaps the most ethical game company I know of. But I don't have to agree

The repetitive motion injuries of the scale of industrialized output could be classified as a crime against humanity.

 

[Arkathan]

This accusation is thrown around in every discussion like this,

The is no proof, none that any theft has taken place.

Training an AI on freely available artwork is no different to teaching a room full of spotty art students by getting them to copy until they learn the basics - which is done, I have seen it for myself.

Every product sold with art not created by a human is the proof.
Stolen opportunities for zero societal gain.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The difference between a calculator and an artist is that there is no "right way" for art. It is entirely subjective and the creation of the artist.

I am not interested in the slightest about subjective art appreciation.

If you get 1000 calculators (people not the machines) to do the same calculation you should end up with exactly the same result.

How is that in any way relevant to a computer learning to generate a picture of a gauss rifle?

There is a RIGHT ANSWER and, therefore, the only valid metric is in speed and accuracy. Changing the result by adding a "personal touch" fundamentally breaks the result.

For art, of any form, the CREATING is as important as the CREATION.

You are arguing that human creative types are a protected class because they create...

what if I do not value their creations?

 

[Tforbes]

I note that no one has challenged the carpet, rug or car making point. Humans have been losing jobs to machines since the wheel was invented.

I am happy to support Mongoose in their ethical stance, they are perhaps the most ethical game company I know of. But I don't have to agree

The fundamental difference is that Carpet, rug and car making machines are assembling the respective materials in a fashion and order that was already determined and designed (by a person). Are you saying that a printer equivalent to the person who created the image? I don't think that was your intent but that's a reasonable extrapolation of your opinion that a machine weaving a carpet is the doing the same job as the person who designed the carpet. Or the robot welding a door onto a car might as well have designed the car.

As the word "creating" can be ambiguous I would argue that the distinction should best be described as between Assembly / Manufacture vs Design.

Creative endeavors by humans ALWAYS include design an CAN include assembly / manufacture.

AI (currently) can only assemble / manufacture based on (increasingly complicated) variant algorithms built with training data as the base Design component.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The repetitive motion injuries of the scale of industrialized output could be classified as a crime against humanity.

To which higher authority do you appeal these contraventions of human rights?
During the industrial revolution there were uprisings to smash the machines, the machine owners won the day. No one protected car workers from the automation that cost them their jobs, and as I asked, will you apply the same principle to the purchase of your next car as you do for a piece of artwork? if you don't buy cars I can change the item since there are so many examples to choose from.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Every product sold with art not created by a human is the proof.
Stolen opportunities for zero societal gain.

No, it is not proof of theft. It is your opinion, it is how you feel about the issue, it is not proof.

This topic came up at CoTI recently, and the consensus over there is very differnt to over here.

here is something someone, not me, linked to:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=AI+"art"+is+theft.&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOagCALACAA&FORM=ANCMS9&PC=LCTS

In the interest of a balanced debate there are cases before the courts, and there may be evidence of companies stealing art to train their AItists. If it is proven then I will accept that some AItists have been trained by illegal methods, but then the onus is to prove they all have been

 

[Arkathan]

To which higher authority do you appeal these contraventions of human rights?
During the industrial revolution there were uprisings to smash the machines, the machine owners won the day. No one protected car workers from the automation that cost them their jobs, and as I asked, will you apply the same principle to the purchase of your next car as you do for a piece of artwork? if you don't buy cars I can change the item since there are so many examples to choose from.

The better comparison is xxxx identifying as xxxx in order to participate in xxxx because they cannot compete in their own lanes, thereby stealing opportunities from people who worked hard to develop their skills.

 

[Tforbes]

I am not interested in the slightest about subjective art appreciation.

I'm not talking about appreciation. I'm saying, if I draw a Car. Is it wrong if I used a photorealistic style vs Anime? What is the OBJECTIVE right way to draw a Cat? If you can't answer that than maybe you can understand how any creative exercise fundamentally differs from a mathematical one.

How is that in any way relevant to a computer learning to generate a picture of a gauss rifle?

Because if you got 1000 artists to create a picture of a gauss rifle there would not be an objectively correct picture? And since a computer is only able to "generate" based on training data created by people, the computer's picture is nothing but the manipulator and recombination of the subjective and personal creations of the human artists.

You are arguing that human creative types are a protected class because they create...

what if I do not value their creations?

I'm sorry. I was operating under the assumption that there was a base value / respect for the concept of creativity and that your position was simply that there was no demonstrative difference between Human and Machine creations. Therefore I tried to demonstrate that there was a distinction because machines are not capable of true creativity.

If you are coming into this with the intent to question the value of creativity itself... that is a larger debate than I am prepared to respond to.