Chiaroscuro Scooter.

Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.

…counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you’re counting doesn’t want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton’s family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.

Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.

Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.

This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.

If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.

I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.

It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.

They go over that, you should give them another read.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. You’re misrepresenting how these systems actually work. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Honestly who cares about being an artist? There’s always going to be snobs trying to tear you down or devalue your efforts. No one questions whether video games are art or not now, but that took like twenty years since people began seriously pushing the subject. The same thing happened with synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s and as a result there are fewer working drummers today, but without these we would not have hip hop or house, and that would have been a huge cultural loss.

Generative art hasn’t found its Marley Marl or Frankie Knuckles yet, but they’re out there, and they’re going to do stuff that will blow our minds. They didn’t need to be artists to change the world.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. Your comment is off base enough to veer into the territory of misinformation.

As long as your AI doesn’t somehow infringe on your training data, you’re allowed to use whatever you want, just like reviewers, analysts, and indexers do.

They’re trained on technical material too.

Is this an attempt to beat those monopoly allegations?

Art isn’t work, it’s speech. It’s part of the human condition. Art is useless, said Wilde. Art is for art’s sake—that is, for beauty’s sake.

I do not make art, I just post it here on lemmy. I’d be OK with that. People freely create, copy, and iterate on memes, and they are the greatest cultural touchstones we have. First and foremost, people create because they have something to say.

People already make memes and mods for free. Humans are a social species and will continue to create and share things until the end of time. Making money off of creation is a privilege for only a tiny few.

That whole page is full of wild shit.