Serious The Politics Thread

[ant4456]

This isn't really relevant to the topic at hand but is related to politics so apologies if what I'm about to say is uninvited:

Is anybody up for some classic leftist infighting?!?!

Holy shit I hate techbro ass leftists so much. I have had the displeasure of talking to people who are socialists but also get literally nothing about the art world so, so, so many times.

Basically the thought process goes like this: They view everything from a capitalist lens, including concepts such as plagiarism, copyright and other such things. Because of this, they read any dispute about those subjects through money. This isn't how the art world works. These people like to claim that if we were in a post-capitalist world, we would have no need for plagiarism as a concept, and that it is only really a thing necessary because of capitalism.

This is entirely untrue and I don't get how this idea is so common. Plagiarism as a *word* has existed since around 1601 and I can assure you the concept has existed for basically as long as art has existed. Plagiarism is not just bad because "grrr take money", it's bad because it is disrespectful, shameful and anti-art as a whole.

It's even worse when people bring the "well actually a brain is like a computer" no it fucking isn't oh my god. This was a cool way to teach how the brain is a "system" like 15 years ago but people bringing this into actual discourse about technology, property and art is so dumb.

AI is plagiarism because it's a computer. Computers randomize the dataset alongside the prompted word to create images that fit the trained criteria. You can literally prompt AI to make images with specific artstyles to specific, named artists. It is plagiarism. Brains are not computers. Brains make shit up all the time. Brains are also not trained to specifically algorithmically create new images based on old ones, they have limited memory and that is exactly why plagiarism is in 99% of cases something someone has to actively attempt to do.

Artists will get mad about people plagiarizing their work even when $0 is on the line because it's a violation of their consent. There's a reason open-source projects on the internet also often still require copyright, and it's because people deserve credit for things they did.

I just read in a back-and-forth argument, in response to me saying "people would still care about plagiarism in a world without money, "plagiarism is only a concept for copyright what are you talking about?

that's social capital, it's still capital!"

the thing about leftist techbros is they will always find a way to justify violating the consent of artists (because it's inconvenient to AI as a project and other sorts) and tie it to concepts that a lot of artists usually agree with, because most artists are progressive, especially online. The moment I read "social capital" I gave up because that's just literally trying anything you can to justify the erasure of art as a community.

Copyright law in of itself has some problems with art and that can be debated. But plagiarism isn't just copyright law.

 

[RaikouLover]

Oh yeah I saw this. Apparently the candidate's defense is basically "fake news, lol." Wonder if the powers of the party will force him out or let him get absolutely demolished in the race.

Some on the right are calling for Mark Robinson to drop out. While normally we would applaud the GOP finally finding a microscopic iota of accountability.... this right here is rich. No calls to drop out for the clown at the top of the ticket that has 34 felony convictions, being found liable for sexual assault, two impeachments, and attempting to overthrow an election. Nope, nothing.

 

[Bakugames]

Idrc abt techbro stuff but also as an artist I think IP law, copyright and trademark should be removed completely. They will always serve the interests of company higher ups and deincentivize art, and "well just give copyright to small artists" is just kinda silly and doesn't work in real life

 

[ant4456]

Idrc abt techbro stuff but also as an artist I think IP law, copyright and trademark should be removed completely. They will always serve the interests of company higher ups and deincentivize art, and "well just give copyright to small artists" is just kinda silly and doesn't work in real life

Plagiarism as a concept isn't just copyright law. The point is that plagiarism is bad and there should be mechanisms against plagiarism whether or not they exist in this form.

I think copyright and trademark are not good mechanisms, but I think mechanisms must exist.

 

[Platinum God n1n1]

Define the Deep State and explain why Trump's own advisors and appointees that he fired were a part of it.

When I say deep state I am referring to the people who have only ever worked as a bueocratic, academic and/or lobbyist. The people who benefit from big government and who Trump refers to when he says drain the swamp. Dick Cheney fits in that bucket so it's not shocking he would support anyone but Trump

 

[adjectivenoun]

When I say deep state I am referring to the people who have only ever worked as a bueocratic, academic and/or lobbyist. The people who benefit from big government and who Trump refers to when he says drain the swamp. Dick Cheney fits in that bucket so it's not shocking he would support anyone but Trump

The inclusion of academics in that list is very telling.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Given the striking correlations between education and leftist/liberal beliefs, it's hardly surprising that regressive Republicans want to erode it.

 

[adjectivenoun]

Given the striking correlations between education and leftist/liberal beliefs, it's hardly surprising that regressive Republicans want to erode it.

Indeed. I wonder why that's the case. I'm sure that our friend has very reasonable opinions on the matter.

 

[Bakugames]

Plagiarism as a concept isn't just copyright law. The point is that plagiarism is bad and there should be mechanisms against plagiarism whether or not they exist in this form.

I think copyright and trademark are not good mechanisms, but I think mechanisms must exist.

The issue is, imo, I don't think there will be mechanisms that can make plagiarism stop that don't just end up like copyright and trademark: biased towards those with power and not extremely helpful towards a smaller artist that might need it more. The moral punishment of plagiarism between communities is probably the most effective we'll ever get.

I will say though that I have biases because even as an artist I never gave a shit about tracing/copying/plagiarism beef other artists get into. So I don't really have any moral feelings about it other than It Exists and It Will Happen, really.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Indeed. I wonder why that's the case. I'm sure that our friend has very reasonable opinions on the matter.

I guess I'll come back to this thread in a week to catch his next response.

 

[ant4456]

The issue is, imo, I don't think there will be mechanisms that can make plagiarism stop that don't just end up like copyright and trademark

Firstly, my problem with copyright and trademark in this case is that the intentions of them don't even necessarily match my intention in this defense:

The goal of these laws, even to begin with, was to protect the interests of creators/inventors in making sure they can profit off of their idea, especially while they're alive. My point with plagiarism is that it's not even about that.

See open source programs for instance. Open source programs are used by people of all kinds, but are still copyrighted mainly to remain credited for the original owner, while still being free use. I believe this is healthy, and at the very least something like this should exist. I think that the ability to create works based on other art is great as long as it comes with the fact that it is, in of itself, acknowledged that it is a transformative work based on other art.

That should be the bare minimum in my opinion.

he moral punishment of plagiarism between communities is probably the most effective we'll ever get.

Well, not really? To be honest, the thing with you saying that it's basically just companies is that, copyright law 100% does defend smaller artists all the time. A lot of the time an issue is that the small artist doesn't actually know how to take action, because just because civil law is violated doesn't make it an automatic case that is put into court - the artist has to know about it, decide to do something about it, and attempt it.

The biggest problem with this part of the law is corporations stalling courts, which is a problem with basically all lawsuits of this nature, and isn't directly just copyright. I mean, they do this with other companies. It's a problem with how our court system works and not the law itself IMO.

Even more though, small artists use their claim against other relatively small artists and it works, generally. It's not perfect but I've always found the claim that copyright only helps big companies to be a bit overblown. It definitely prioritizes companies but it's not like it doesn't actually help people at any part of the totem pole.

I will say though that I have biases because even as an artist I never gave a shit about tracing/copying/plagiarism beef other artists get into. So I don't really have any moral feelings about it other than It Exists and It Will Happen, really.

Maybe on the other end I'm biased in that I would be extremely upset if someone copied my work and passed it as their own, I don't know the entirely common sentiment.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I understand that being plagiarized feels shitty, and I would probably be pretty upset if it happened to me, but at the end of the day that issue is one of ego, not utilitarianism. Reasonable ego, no doubt; pretty much everybody desires recognition and appreciation for their work, but how much of that is underpinned or at least amplified by a society that largely doesn't care about or appreciate you as a person regardless of whether or not you produce quality art?

This is probably a hot take, but in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, publishing art anonymously should be normalized.

 

[ant4456]

I understand that being plagiarized feels shitty, and I would probably be pretty upset if it happened to me, but at the end of the day that issue is one of ego, not utilitarianism. Reasonable ego, no doubt; pretty much everybody desires recognition and appreciation for their work, but how much of that is underpinned or at least amplified by a society that largely doesn't care about or appreciate you as a person regardless of whether or not you produce quality art?

This is probably a hot take, but in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, publishing art anonymously should be normalized.

I don't really get this point because art is a celebration of culture and people, and are a product of people. The person who made the art should absolutely be tied to the art, unless them not being tied to the art is part of the art, or because they simply want to publish it anonymously.

You can say it's ego but I don't get why recognition can't be a thing here. Whether or not people genuinely appreciate the artist or not isn't really the point, I don't see why post-capitalism it really should just be publishing art with no ties to who made it.

We should be trending in the direction of more credit, not less. Already plenty of people aren't credited in big works as straight up punishment for not being loyal enough to companies, people who leave early due to workplace abuse even. People aren't credited because their work isn't appreciated all the time.

I don't see why credit is something that should be denormalized. I also think that, bluntly, there'd be a lot less art in the world if sharing it to the world was not something that'd be tied to you. The art itself would likely change to match it, which would be interesting; using the anonymity to its advantage, as some things do as is, but I think it'd discourage tons of forms of art.

When I made a GameJam game I tried to credit everything I could, every art asset, sound effect, song, etc. and really make sure that what I did was clear and separate from the open-source assets I (we, actually; me and someone else did it together) made. I think that's healthy, even if not a single dollar was exchanged or will ever be exchanged out of this system.

 

[adjectivenoun]

This is probably a hot take, but in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, publishing art anonymously should be normalized.

Methinks that you'd have a hard time getting many artists on board with this one. Financial incentive or no, there's always an element of desire for recognition/validation when someone opts to share their art with others, rather than keeping it to themselves. I'm not at all saying that this is a bad thing, by the way; I think it's completely normal and healthy to want some of that.

 

[ant4456]

It is something I kinda feel bad to admit, but yeah, part of me making art has always been partially validation.

That isn't to say I make art to get validation, but that validation for my art is something that makes me want to make more art. I don't think I'd stop making art in an anonymous-focused art world but I feel like I'd feel less incentivized to work on projects that are more personal to me. Plus, I think it'd suck if an anonymous focus meant that we'd get less interviews, less ability to understand how an art reflects the creator, and becoming fans of the same artist and following them. Seeing an artist's work and wanting to ask them questions about their craft? Not very feasible anymore, either; the sharing of knowledge would have to be more general focused.

Imagine a world where we never really know how most classic stories came to be, they just spawned from the digital ether. I mean... That could be cool in some cases, and often we still don't really know about historical figures. But the nerd in me would consider that a very dark time.

 

[MrHands]

AI art in itself isn't plagiarism lol. I could draw "Miyazaki style" or "Spongebob" and lawyers aren't going to show up at my door. I would have to claim those things as my own and even then it would be up to the owners of those things to give a shit. There's also fair use laws etc.

AI is able to understand concepts and language. It knows what a mermaid is. Ask it to make a blue mermaid with a cowboy hat holding a 5 layer taco bell burrito... in claymation style and it will make that. Not because it ripped someone's drawing but because it understands the basics of what I just said. It gets there the same way I would... by looking at those things and knowing what they are, applying that learned knowledge in a variety of styles. AI just does it faster. I didn't invent mermaids, but someone did. I'm not plagiarizing someone by drawing one despite 100% of my knowledge of them being from the art of other people.

Okay the AI is a little confused as to what is in a Taco Bell 5 layer burrito but honestly so am I. We aren't wizards, no one knows what each layer contains. Please tell me who has been plagiarized by this image. To add to what I said I am a digital artist and I do sell commissions. But I see no real difference between what a machine does vs what I do. The real difference is creativity and intent, but that's what the prompt is for.

The reason no laws are being passed ANYWHERE ON EARTH against AI art is because it isn't breaking any laws or rights. People who make their living doing art are understandably afraid and knee-jerk clinging to any hope it can be stopped. It won't, and just like CGI in the early 2000s it will gradually become the norm. Everyone reading this has consumed AI media despite not knowing it was AI.

I love art. It's something I am deeply passionate about. In high school I basically traded a social life for thousands of hours practicing hand drawn art, followed by digital art in college (where I finally found a social life). Making art is fucking hard. Not everyone has the time or money (tablets aren't free, nor are computers or Photoshop) to get the skills needed to create. I do not support people being locked behind a paywall / time... wall (?) to create. If someone has ideas they want to make real I am absolutely going to defend them if they use AI to recognize that vision. Because as an artist I know how it feels to make that idea real. Spending time or money learning a skill doesn't make creation somehow more valid.

 

[Platinum God n1n1]

Indeed. I wonder why that's the case. I'm sure that our friend has very reasonable opinions on the matter.

Key words preceeding academics were "only ever worked".
Nothing against education or academics. What I believe is that the best and brightest PhDs generally tend to go out to the private sector and make big money.
But liberals have affinity for those that spend most of their life writing theoretical papers reviewed by other liberal people. Jennet yellen is an example, her job would be better served by someone with who hasn't spent their entire career surrounded by academic group think

 

[Wigglytuff]

Key words preceeding academics were "only ever worked".
Nothing against education or academics. What I believe is that the best and brightest PhDs generally tend to go out to the private sector and make big money.
But liberals have affinity for those that spend most of their life writing theoretical papers reviewed by other liberal people. Jennet yellen is an example, her job would be better served by someone with who hasn't spent their entire career surrounded by academic group think

Then the initial parameter you set (people that have only ever been in academia) doesn’t even serve your purpose and is terrible notwithstanding.

Clearly you’re only talking about academics in the social sciences, what with the “group think” and “writing theoretical papers.” And sure, I guess if you lobotomize yourself, you can think of them as actors of The Deep State instead of just being a bunch of nerds that want to deepen our understanding of society. And maybe they suck at it! You’re certainly free to think so.

How would what you’re saying apply to STEM fields, where the science is more rigid? Are they getting influenced by the liberals too?

 

[adjectivenoun]

Then the initial parameter you set (people that have only ever been in academia) doesn’t even serve your purpose and is terrible notwithstanding.

Clearly you’re only talking about academics in the social sciences, what with the “group think” and “writing theoretical papers.” And sure, I guess if you lobotomize yourself, you can think of them as actors of The Deep State instead of just being a bunch of nerds that want to deepen our understanding of society. And maybe they suck at it! You’re certainly free to think so.

How would what you’re saying apply to STEM fields, where the science is more rigid? Are they getting influenced by the liberals too?

I've been occupied, but this is basically what I was going to say. Acting like career academics are just a bunch of liberals living entirely in the realm of theory and patting each other on the back for it speaks to a deep lack of understanding of what it is that these people actually do, even if you stick to the humanities and softer sciences.

 

[Bakugames]

Maybe on the other end I'm biased in that I would be extremely upset if someone copied my work and passed it as their own, I don't know the entirely common sentiment.

Yours is the most common sentiment, at least in the areas I interact with other artists. I enjoy and love my art, but I don't have much attachment to my art as it exists on the internet to care if it was traced or reposted. At most I don't want it to happen to commissioner's stuff, but that's for their sake rather than mine. I understand where people come from with it, but I guess it's always been an issue that laws can't fix without it having some nasty consequences. Politeness in internet spaces, if that makes sense.

 

[ant4456]

Regarding MrHands:

I'll be honest, I'm not even going to humor any directly pro-genAI statements. You're not getting me to argue with that shit and I don't care. GenAI is bad and you're wrong.

This is something I'm never going to go back on. You can't convince me, I'm already very well informed about it, thank you very much; in fact I'm pretty sure I've seen literally every single talking point in this long message repackaged into so many different bullshit arguments to justify bypassing the consent of artists and throwing their art into The Plagiarism Machine.

You are not just someone I "disagree with", you are a threat to my future and things I enjoy. You are a threat to many of my friends' livelihoods, passion and their futures as well. You are a threat to art as a whole. We cannot have a conversation on this. Bye.

 

[MrHands]

Is anybody up for some classic leftist infighting?!?!

Apparently you changed your mind. :(

 

[Wigglytuff]

Apparently you changed your mind. :(

Should we take this to mean that you consider yourself a leftist?

 

[MrHands]

Should we take this to mean that you consider yourself a leftist?

By US standards I'm somewhere in between Biden and Sanders on most issues.

 

[Mathy]

Is anybody up for some classic leftist infighting?!?!

Finally, I can post!

Holy shit I hate techbro ass leftists so much. I have had the displeasure of talking to people who are socialists but also get literally nothing about the art world so, so, so many times.

Programmer badge ass leftist here. I've seen plenty of non-programmer leftists take at least a neutral stance on the AI discourse, but I'll acknowledge my bias here lol.

So the argument being made is

1. Plagiarism is inherently bad
2. All AI generative art is plagiarism
3. Therefore, all AI generative art is bad

I don't particularly disagree with #1 here, and of course #3 follows logically. The problem I have is with #2, which is argued as follows:

AI is plagiarism because it's a computer. Computers randomize the dataset alongside the prompted word to create images that fit the trained criteria. You can literally prompt AI to make images with specific artstyles to specific, named artists. It is plagiarism. Brains are not computers. Brains make shit up all the time. Brains are also not trained to specifically algorithmically create new images based on old ones, they have limited memory and that is exactly why plagiarism is in 99% of cases something someone has to actively attempt to do.

This is a very weak argument -- let's break it down.

AI is plagiarism because it's a computer. Computers randomize the dataset alongside the prompted word to create images that fit the trained criteria.

This has little to do with what plagiarism actually is, but I'll assume in good faith that the intended argument has to do with 1 of 2 ways plagiarism might happen:

1. AI is plagiarism because it doesn't attribute its sources
2. AI is plagiarism because it uses other sources without originality

If you would argue #1, would you say that "ethical" genAI could exist as long as it attributes all its data sources?

#2 is a bit trickier. You can certainly believe that computers are incapable of having originality, but in what ways is that different than a human being influenced by their environment? The amount of data from any 1 source in a model is a drop in the ocean, so would you call it plagiarism when a human takes slight inspiration from a random drawing? "Are living things capable of originality that computers aren't" is a much more philosophical question and I might just have to agree to disagree on this, but I'd like to hear your arguments on it in more detail.

You can literally prompt AI to make images with specific artstyles to specific, named artists. It is plagiarism.

And humans can imitate artstyles, too. What genAI "can" do is not an argument that all of it is plagiarism.

Serious thought experiment: Alice creates works that attempt to imitate Bob's style (affectionately and non-maliciously). Perhaps she even traces off of Bob's works sometimes, but she always clearly attributes the style to Bob. Would this be considered plagiarism? How would this be different than Alice affectionately making an AI model that imitates Bob's art?

Brains are not computers. Brains make shit up all the time. Brains are also not trained to specifically algorithmically create new images based on old ones, they have limited memory and that is exactly why plagiarism is in 99% of cases something someone has to actively attempt to do.

This again touches on the philosophical, but I'd like to hear your line for intentional vs unintentional plagiarism -- the latter is actually quite common in academia!