Comment by kachapopopow

A translation is absolutely under copyright. It is a creative process after all.

This means a book can be in public domain for the original text, because it's very old, but not the translation because it's newer.

For example Julius Caesar's "Gallic War" in the original latin is clearly not subject to copyright, but a recent English translation will be.

Stagnate just like hand thatched rooves? Or like weavers, ever since Jaquard?

I don't see too many people defending artists also calling for people to start buying handmade clothing and fabrics again.

That said and because people on here are feisty, I have many artist friends and I deeply appreciate their work at the same time as appreciating how cool diffusion models are.

The difference being of course that we live in a modern society and we should be able to find a solution that works for all.

That said, humans can't even get in something basic like UBI for people and humans consistently vote against each other in favour of discriminating on skin colour, sex, sexuality, culture. Meanwhile the billionaires that are soon to become trillionaires are actively defended by many members of our species, sometimes even by the poor. The industrial age broke our evolved monkey brains.

> The output of artists has copyright.

Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation. There are entire art movements and music genres that wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art.

> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.

Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements, and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we consider that machines can create a practically infinite number of permutations based on their source data, it's not unthinkable that they could also create art that humans consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs. Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great artists steal", etc.

So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art can also set trends and shape the space they're generated in.

The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional laws like copyright, and considering whether we can implement a new framework that's fair towards creators without the drawbacks of the current system.

That makes no sense, neither legally nor philosophically.

> Language developed independently of translators.

And it also developed independently of writers and poets.

> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.

Not writers and poets, apparently. And so maybe not even artists, who typically mostly painted book references. Color perception and symbolism developed independently of professional artists, too. Moreover, all of the things you mention predate copyright.

> The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.

But that will never happen; it's near-impossible to stop humans from generating novel arts. They just do it as a matter of course - and the more accessible the tools are, the more people participate.

Yes, memes are a form of art, too.

What's a real threat is lack of shared consumption of art. This has been happening for the past couple decades now, first with books, then with visual arts. AI will make this problem worse by both further increasing volume of "novel arts" and by enabling personalization. The real value we're using is the role of art as social objects - the ability to relate to each other by means of experiencing the same works of art, and thus being able to discuss and reference it. If no two people ever experienced the same works of art, there's not much about art they can talk about; if there's no shared set of art seen by most people in a society, there's a social baseline lost. That problem does worry me.

I don't think the Berne Convention on Copyright was meant as a complete list of things where humans have valuable input. Translators do shape the space in which they generate output. Their space isn't any single language bit rather the connecting space between languages.

Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of many creative professions is rather uncreative. But translating a book, comic or movie requires creative decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the idioms and cultural context of a different language. The difference between a good and a bag translation can be stark

You are wrong. Translations have copyright. That is why a new translation of for example an ancient book has copyright and you are now allowed to reproduce it without permission.

Makes me wonder if the generous copyright protections afforded to artists had not become so abhorrent (thanks, Disney) then this kind of thing might not have happened.

Wrong from the first sentence…

Translations absolutely have copyright.

Piracy is promotion, look at all the fanfiction.

Also in case of graphic and voice artists unique style looks more valuable than output itself, but style isn't protected by copyright.

This. Except one should also disillusion themselves of the idea that there will always be a higher quality to the 'hand made' versions. AI will almost certainly outpace us in every way, including the ability to make something beautiful that looks 'hand-made', even with artificial flaws and illusions of the history and natural rugged beauty of the piece.

The only discernable difference that won't be replicable is a cryptographic signature "Certified 100% Human-Made!" sticker, which will probably become the mark of the niche industry.

Somewhat more accurate analogy would be the custom car market. Beautiful collectible convertibles with fine detailing everywhere, priced thousands of times higher than normal cars, that actually run far worse and basically break apart after a few thousand miles and are impossible to find parts for. Automated factories certainly could churn them out but they don't because they're impractical poorly-designed status items kept artificially scarce for the very rich to peacock with.

Except AI will probably still produce equivalent impractical stuff anyway, just because production (digital and physical) will eventually be easy enough that resources are negligible, and everyone can have flashy impractical stuff. So again, only that "100% Human!" seal will distinguish, eventually.

The reproduction cost for the 2nd copy of media is near zero just like software. Handmade or customized furniture is more expensive because it takes more labor for each copy. With media, the cost is fixed, even if it is large. Once the first version of handmade media has been created, the owner is incentivized to get as much value from it as possible. The optimal demand curve is probably not a few rich people paying as much as possible.

> There will be a niche industry of 'hand made' media with real acting and writing from human brains, but it will be expensive, a mark of conspicuous consumption and class differentiation.

This addresses one axis of development.

Meanwhile, there's lots of people around willing to express themselves for advertisement money.

Like with translation: We're going to see tool-assisted work where the tools get more and more sophisticated.

Your example with furniture is good. Another is cars: From horses to robotaxis. Humans are in the loop somewhere still.

This prediction implies that people will value consuming tailored media, knowing 100% that it was generated because they wanted it (as opposed to because someone wanted to express something), with no deeper story or connection or exploration to it.

If people instead care about the creation story and influences (the idea of "behind the scenes" and "creator interviews" for on demand ai generated media is pretty funny) then this won't have much value.

Time will tell - it's an exciting, discouraging time to be alive, which has probably always been the case.

[flagged]

While LLMs are pretty good, and likely to improve, my experience is OpenAI's offerings *absolutely* make stuff up after a few thousand words or so, and they're one of the better ones.

It also varies by language. Every time I give an example here of machine translated English-to-Chinese, it's so bad that the responses are all people who can read Chinese being confused because it's gibberish.

And as for politics, as Grok has just been demonstrating, they're quite capable of whatever bias they've been trained to have or told to express.

But it's worse than that, because different languages cut the world at different joints, so most translations have to make a choice between literal correctness and readability — for example, you can have gender-neutral "software developer" in English, but in German to maintain neutrality you have to choose between various unwieldy affixes such as "Softwareentwickler (m/w/d)" or "Softwareentwickler*innen" (https://de.indeed.com/karriere-guide/jobsuche/wie-wird-man-s...), or pick a gender because "Softwareentwickler" by itself means they're male.

This is just not true, LLMs struggle very hard with even basic recursive questions, nuances and dialects

Maybe for dry text. Translation of art is art too and there's no such thing as higher quality art.

If you speak more than one language(esp something like Chinese or Japanese) you understand how subjective some choices are. It certainly takes creative decision making.

As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties for her translations for decades, both from sales and from library lending. And she could sue for copyright infringement if someone stole her translation. The only difference is that she needs permission to distribute the translation, unless it’s translated from the public domain.

This is probably true. I've noticed some people have better critical eye with the AI output than others. People with artistic skill can make stuff of much higher quality, it seems. I guess they get immediately bored of the default settings which compose most of the low-quality slop being pushed around.

They already are; have been for decades now. AI is amplifying this, true, but art done for love and for money are already pretty much disjoint ventures, and in areas where they mix (like TV shows), it's an uphill battle for the artist - and they're not always right, either; a good show is more than just great writing or beautiful art.

The fact that those TV shows exist indicates the root of the problem has nothing to do with AI.

Those show are cheap because they employ fewer people. They still need to employ some people though. To me the greater tradgedy is that they make a product where those people who make it do not care about it. People are working to make things they don't like because they need income to survive.

The problem is not that AI is taking jobs, it is that it is taking incomes. If we really are heading to a world where most jobs can be done by AI (I have my doubts about most, but I'll accept many), we need a strategy to preserve incomes. We already desperately need a system to prevent massive wealth inequality.

We need to have a discussion about the future we want to have, but we are just attacking the tools used by people making a future we don't want. We should be looking at the hands that hold the tools.

Discussions like this often lead to talking about universal basic income. I think that is a mistake. We need a broader strategy than that. The income needs to be far better than 'basic'. Education needs to change to developing the individual instead of worker units.

Imagine a world where the only TV shows were made were the ones who could attract people who care about the program enough that they would offer their time to work on it.

That too would generate a lot of poor quality content, because not everyone is good at the things they like to do. It would be heartless to call it slop though. More importantly those people who are afforded the lifestyle that enables them to produce low quality things are doing precisely the work they need to be doing to become people who produce high quality things.

Some of those hands learning to make high quality things may be holding the tools of AI. People making things because they want to make will produce some incredible things with or without AI. A lot of astounding creations we haven't even seen or perhaps even imagined will be produced by people creatively using new tools.

(This is what I get for checking HN when I let the dog out to toilet in the middle of night)

The ones doing it because they like it don't need to care about the mass produced slop.

The situation will get worse, not the models.

"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.

What do you mean? How can AI cripple an artist? Even if the AI can do stuff better than I can in less time, it doesn't affect my art at all. It's the same thing as human artists better than them existing. Then again, I've seen people who get jealous to a raging degree because artist X can do better than them, so...

Every artist worth anything strives to be better at their craft on the daily, if that artist gets discouraged because there's something "better", that means that artist is not good because those negative emotions are coming from a competitive place instead of one of self-improvement and care for their craft or the audience. Art is only a competition with oneself, and artists that don't understand or refuse this fact are doomed from the start.

The way I think of art has two main components: the aesthetics and the higher level impressions invoked through those aesthetics. For me, art is specifically about the experimentation-with and the then-intentional use of aesthetics, to evoke a specific set of impressions within its audience. A form of communication, a transfer of experiences, frames of mind, and ideas. The more effectively and intelligently one can do this, the more skilled of an artist they are in my book.

When I see generative AI produced illustrations, they'll usually be at least aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes they are already more than that. I found that there are lots and lots of illustrations that already deliver higher level experiences that go beyond just their quality of aesthetics delivery. They deliver on the goal they were trying to use those aesthetics for to begin with. Whether this is through tedious prompting and "borrowed" illustrational techniques I think is difficult to debate right now, but just based on what I've seen so far of this field and considering my views and definitions, I have absolutely zero doubts that AI will 100% generate artworks that are more and more "legitimately" artful, and that there's no actual hard dividing line one can draw between these and manmade art, and what difference does exist now I'm confident will gradually fade away.

I do not believe that humans are any more special than just the fact that they're human provides to them. Which is ultimately ever-dwindling now it seems.

The argument they made, at least for the 1.0 of their image model, is that the database of images they purchased was heavily tagged reducing the work they had to do.

That isn't to say that they purchased everything they have ever used. Nor do I care if they have.

That was a happy accident.

If somebody comes up with a new pun, is that art?

If you could, I imagine universities wouldn't be so worried about students using chat gpt to cheat.

I’ve heard other people say that.

I think there are more musicians with reach than ever.

I would say it’s very likely there are far fewer musicians making a living out of their music than there were in the last. That’s the key difference.

And the truth is that for most people incentives matter, so not being able to make a living from music means very talented people who are financially motivated (ie most of them) do something else instead.

The internet has allowed for more artists to get exposure for sure, but it's still down to luck / prettiness / virality etc. In terms of slop (not necessarily AI) there's shit like this https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-denies-its-pl...

Yes, going offline/physical only. If it's digital, it can be scraped/ingested/trained on.

I'm sorry to inform you that the mere automated pre-processing used in building of a training set will most likely disable any form of poisoning because the image is being altered before training. All popular training tools do this.

Art stealing is a thing. I've had by art stolen regularly. Multiple Doom mods use sprites I made and only one person (the DRLA guy) asked for permission. I've had my art traced and even used in advertisements with me only finding out by sheer chance. I've had people use it for coloring without crediting the source. This has happened for more than thirty years. You can only learn to live with it, lest you risk going absolutely insane. If you are popular, people will do stupid stuff with your stuff. And if you aren't popular, you art is not going to be used to train, anyway (sets are ordered by popularity and only the top stuff gets used. The one with 3 upvotes is not going in.)