• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Thats basically my main point, Disney doesn’t need the data, Getty either. AI isn’t going away and the jobs will be lost no matter what.

    Putting a price tag in the high millions for any kind of generative model only benefits the big players.

    I feel for the artists. It was already a very competitive domain that didn’t really pay well and it’s now much worse but if they aren’t a household name, they aren’t getting a dime out of any new laws.

    I’m not ready to give the economy to Microsoft, Google, Getty and Adobe so GRRM can get a fat payday.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      If AI companies lose, small artists may have the recourse of seeking compensation for the use and imitation of their art too. Just feeling for them is not enough if they are going to be left to the wolves.

      There isn’t a scenario here in which big media companies lose so talking of it like it’s taking a stand against them doesn’t make much sense. What are we fighting for here? That we get to generate pictures of Goofy? The small AI user’s win here seems like such a silly novelty that I can’t see how it justifies just taking for granted that artists will have it much rougher than they already have.

      The reality here is that even if AI gets the free pass, large media and tech companies are still primed to profit from them far more than any small user. They will be the one making AI-assisted movies and integrating chat AI into their systems. They don’t lose in either situation.

      There are ways to train AI without relying on unauthorized copyrighted data. Even if OpenAI loses, it wouldn’t be the death of the technology. It may be more efficient and effective to train them with that data, but why is “efficiency” enough to justify this overreach?

      And is it even wise to be so callous about it? Because it’s not going to stop with artists. This technology has the potential to replace large swaths of service industries. If we don’t think of the human costs now, it will be even harder to make a case for everyone else.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I fully believe AI will be able to replace 50% or more of desk jobs in the near future. It’s definitely a complicated situation and you make good points.

        First and foremost, I think it’s imperative the barrier for entry for model training is as low as possible. Anything else basically gives a select few companies the ability to charge a huge subscription fee on all our goods and services.

        The data needed is pretty heavy as well, it’s not very pheasible to go off of donated or public domain data.

        I also think any job loss is virtually guaranteed and trying to save them is misguided as well as not really benefiting most of those affected.

        And yea, the big companies win either way but if it’s easier to use this new tech, we might not lose as hard. Disney for instance doesn’t have any competition but if a bunch of indie animation companies and groups start popping up, it levels the playing field a bit.

        • RedFox@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          In many discussions I’ve seen, small or independent creators are one of the focuses of loss and protection.

          Also there’s the acknowledgement that existing jobs will be reduced, eliminated, or transformed.

          How much different is this from the mass elimination of the 50s stereotype secretaries? We used to have rooms full of workers typing memos, then we got computers, copiers, etc.

          I know there’s a difference between a creator’s work vs a job/task. I’m more curious if these same conversations came up when the office technological advances put those people out? You could find a ton more examples where advancement or efficiency gains reduced employment.

          Should technology advancement be tied to not eliminating jobs or taking away from people’s claim to work?

          I know there’s more complexity like greed and profits here.