PC36

selcouth in demeanor and preference

gynephilic mashup artist

minor

i drew my own pfp

last fm recently played music


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @PC36's post:

It's just another form of exploitation, really. The rich get to use all your work for their own thing, and you get nothing out of it. That and they get to obfuscate all that, so you can't even really fight against it

I mean, I get feeling like that. But like, when I make mashups, aren't I doing the same thing? I use other people's work for my own things all the time, and those musicians don't get anything out of it. Sure, I don't profit off of it, but would it be bad if I did? Are the AI trainers supposed to split up part of their profit equally among a million people? It really feels like scale is the only difference. I'm not sure how often people are expressing discontent for the fact that corporations can do whatever they want vs. specifically saying that the act of training an AI is itself morally wrong, but I am very concerned that most people seem to be expressing the latter.

I am very concerned that most people seem to be expressing the latter.

Most people probably are doing that, because most people are fools who couldn't articulate a coherent philosophy if their life depended on it >.< It's a legitimate problem that most of the people talking about literally every popular issue just don't know what they're talking about.

So there's a few differences between stuff like mashups and other derivative works, and a corpo using everything ever posted to their website or whatever as training data. So yes, they both take something made by someone else, without compensation, and turn it into something else, BUT mashup artists (like you) give credit. That matters SO MUCH. So many artists I know are fine with their art being used by whoever, as long as they just get a little note saying their work was used.

I was gonna type up more, but I'm having a bit of trouble focusing right now. Credit and exploitation are the biggest issues, at least to me

it's more like a giant company going to a bunch of different stores and taking notes on each of the products there and then making their own products based on the statistical trends of the stuff there. AIs don't get trained by stealing! there's a very good video series by 3blue1brown explaining how AIs work, but basically, an AI has a bunch of inputs and outputs, and a bunch of different layers of equations in between that turn the inputs into the outputs. then, for every piece of training data, the AI looks at how it would respond vs. the intended response and adjusts the equations in the middle to result in an outcome closer to the intended one. and then it does that an absurd amount of times. they don't actually take anything! like, plagiarism is bad because there is some thing that you took and claimed as your own, even if the owner is not being deprived of it like normal theft (which is what makes normal theft bad). AIs (when designed correctly) do neither of these!

here's my take: anything that i share online (unless it is completely public domain and free-as-in-freedom), i share with some vague expectations of how i would like it to be used.

example: by uploading my code/software to the internet, i hope that it will be useful to someone. i'm fine with people using it/modifying it/taking pieces of code to use in their own projects. i hope that whoever does that will credit me in some way, but honestly most of the time i don't mind too much if they don't (unless they're being an asshole about it or something)

however, i am not fine with corporations taking my entire output in bulk and feeding it into a machine or process of some kind in a clearly profit-driven act. there's no credit, no compensation, no acknowledgement.

"they don't actually take anything" - and yet the output would not be the same without my stuff being fed into it as the input. you could argue that it's just a drop in the ocean - but that, i'd say, actually makes it seem even worse. they didn't really need my stuff - but they took it anyway, just because they could, and capitalism does not know nor understand the word "enough"

so your problem is specifically with the fact that it's being done by a corporation for profit, and you don't have any problem with the act itself? like, if there was just one guy in their bedroom scraping the internet for their own personal project, would it be fine?