AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Jfdlsjfd]

Your view of this stuff is biased and without nuance. At least you are consistent.

The fact -- whether you like it or not -- is there is a continuum, and you consistently refuse to acknowledge the continuum.

What about this: a painter who has 10,000 pieces of work trains an AI on his own art entirely. He has Parkinson's now, and can't paint anymore. He tells his bespoke AI to paint a picture that he prompts, because it is what he would have painted could he do so.

Is he the artist of the result?

And if he isn't, why is the Madonna del Latte a painting by Verrochio and not by his student, Lorenzo di Credi?

Edit: the story goes that Verrochio stopped painting to focus on scultpure after assessing his student Leonardo Da Vinci had surpassed him, but the Madonna del Latte was mostly done by another student picking on his master's design.

 

[Scribe]

Your view of this stuff is biased and without nuance. At least you are consistent.

The fact -- whether you like it or not -- is there is a continuum, and you consistently refuse to acknowledge the continuum.

What about this: a painter who has 10,000 pieces of work trains an AI on his own art entirely. He has Parkinson's now, and can't paint anymore. He tells his bespoke AI to paint a picture that he prompts, because it is what he would have painted could he do so.

Is he the artist of the result?

Now thats an interesting scenario.

 

[trappedslider]

 

[trappedslider]

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Why wouldn't they make deal with everyone? There are enough parties interested in buying their data so that an exclusive deal would prove less profitable, wouldn't it?

 

[overgeeked]

How atrocious. But at least that shows they understand they have to pay to use copyrighted works.

Meta ‘discussed buying publisher Simon & Schuster to train AI’

Audio shared with the New York Times appears to record executives discussing purchase of the US books giant to feed into its large language models

www.theguardian.com

 

[trappedslider]

School rescinds prize after AI art submission - Taipei Times

Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan

www.taipeitimes.com

Educational institutions should be careful in writing competition guidelines on tools and media to ensure students understand the assignment, National Taichung University of Education professor Lu Shih-yun (盧詩韻) said.

Schools should do a better job of integrating AI art as a tool in the creative process and re-evaluate their definition of art to include the utilization of new technology, she said, adding that the use of image generation tools should be accepted as an art form.

The point is not to prevent students from using AI to make art but to teach them how to use it correctly, National Chiayi University Department of Visual Art chair Hsieh Chih-chang (謝其昌) said.

Creators can and should make use of AI so long as the work they created is unique and distinctly theirs, he added.

 

[overgeeked]

And, because capitalism, “AI” is stealing people’s voices, too. Yes, I’m fully aware this isn’t new today tech. It’s been around a minute. Doesn’t make it any less disgusting.

Baldur's Gate 3 actors tear into AI voice cloning: 'That is stealing not just my job but my identity'

Nobody really seems to want or like this stuff, but it sure is happening anyway.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[trappedslider]

Piano rolls — long scroll-like rolls of paper coded with holes in them for use in player pianos — were the first medium for cheaply making mass-produced "recordings" of music. At the time they were invented, the music industry was composed solely of publishers of sheet music. Predictably, these publishers saw the sales of pre-recorded performances as a major threat to their income, and lobbied the Congress (Parliament/Senate) of the American Union to not only ban piano rolls and player pianos, but to pass a law requiring any new system for music reproduction be subject to a veto from a collective association made up of all the music publishers. Congress didn't give in to their demands and instead created the "mechanical license" system. But not before the 19th-century equivalent of the RIAA trotted John Phillip Sousa before Congress to declare apocalyptically:
These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

The synthesizer, while ubiquitous in music from the '80s to today, was controversial in its earlier years. Since one keyboardist can now sound like a full orchestra, there was concern over synths putting session musicians out of their jobs, especially after sampling became widespread. There was also the misconception that they require no skill or talent, even though they require piano skills and knowledge of how to tweak the sound, especially in the early days of synths.

 

[CapnZapp]

This isn't the first time a technological paradigm shift obsoletes certain jobs, while creating others, and just like every earlier time, railing against it is simply an exercise in wasting your time.

AI is so painfully obviously here to stay it's not even funny. Getting AI as a tool is a wonderful epoch-setting event that will profoundly speed up many tasks.

Sure there are a few teething problems but they are temporary and not very relevant even in the short term. They most certainly do not mean the cat can ever be put back in the back, that's for sure!