- 0 Posts
- 21 Comments
Yes, that’s just extra reasons why the USD is more valuable/more dominant/used as a reserve currency.
The point was that saying Bitcoin doesn’t have actual value because it doesn’t have a military isn’t true. You can see the actual value on any exchange, just like every other currency. The value of a currency is related to its use in trade, even countries without a military have currencies with value.
The fact that the USD is more valuable or used as a reserve currency doesn’t mean that other currencies (including bitcoin) don’t have value.
The military and police is not what gives currency it’s value. A country’s currency is valued based on it’s usefulness in the global economy, not based on how many ships in its navy or planes in its air force.
We know the value of a currency based on the exchange rate to all other currencies, which you can see at any exchange.
Similarly, Bitcoin’s value is based on how useful it is in the global economy. We know the value because we can see the exchange rate to all other currencies on any exchange.
The only real difference is that fiat currency is a database of money backed by a bank, protected by police and the military while Bitcoin is a database of money backed by mathematics and processing power.
It’s silly to argue that Bitcoin doesn’t have actual value when you can simply look at an exchange and see the trade volume and price to know that that isn’t true.
When we’re talking about legal issues, the terms are important.
Copyright violation isn’t stealing. It is, at worse, a civil matter where one party can show how they’ve been harmed and recover damage. In addition, copyright law allows use of the copyrighted work without the author’s permission in some circumstances.
You’re simply stating that ‘AI is stealing’ when that just isn’t true. And, assuming you mean a violation of copyright, if it was a civil violation then exactly how much would the model owe in damages to any given piece of art? This kind of case would have to be litigated as a class action lawsuit and, if your “AI is stealing committing mass copyright violation” theory is correct then there should be a case where this has been successfully litigated, right?
There are a lot of dismissed class action lawsuits on the topic, but you can’t find any major cases where this issue has been resolved according to your “AI is stealing” claim. On the other hand, there ARE plenty of cases where Machine Learning (the field of which generative AI is a subset) using copyrighted data was ruled as fair use:
Google has won two important copyright cases that seem relevant to the AI debate. In 2006, the company was sued by Perfect 10, an adult entertainment site that claimed Google had infringed its copyright by generating thumbnail photos of its content; the court ruled that providing images in a search index was “fundamentally different” from simply creating a copy, and that in doing so, Google had provided “a significant benefit to the public.” In the other case, the Authors’ Guild, a professional organization that represents the interests of writers, sued Google for scanning more than twenty million books and showing short snippets of text when people searched for them. In 2013, a judge in that case ruled that Google’s conduct constituted fair use because it was transformative.
Creating a generative model is fundamentally different than copying artwork and it also provides a significant benefit to the public. The AI models are not providing users with copies of the copyrighted work. They’re, literally, transformative.
This isn’t a simple matter of it being automatically wrong and illegal if copyrighted work was used to create the models. Copyright law, and law in general, is more complex than a social media meme like ‘AI is stealing’.
I think most customers want a fun game that doesn’t cost $120.
I’m not against AI as a tool, but don’t assume people will like your game more if you plaster it with AI art. It’s like coloring your sketch with stickers. The stickers may be good quality, but it will still look like a messy puzzle…
If your game is good and fun even crappy art will sell it (look at touhou).
I’m not quite sure I’m following.
Are you saying that AI trained on the output of humans is unethical, unless those humans are programmers?
Or, as a professional programmer, you understand the limitations of AI in your field so you don’t feel threatened by it while simultaneously assuming, on behalf of another profession, that AI in “artistic” fields is somehow far more capable and an actual threat?
Terrible programmers don’t become professional programmers because they subscribe to Copilot. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
Terrible artists don’t become professional artists because they subscribe to Midjourney. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
Also, screw the independent developer who doesn’t have artists to lay off nor the budget to hire them.
If they want to make a game then they should spend decades learning to program and decades learning to create art and decades learning to create music.
If they use AI to make code or assets then it completely invalidates their work and the fun that I’m having with their game is just fake fun.
The only Real Games are those made by giant corporations with the capital to hire artists, programmers and musicians that can lovingly hand craft the loot boxes for the next major children’s casino.
e: Honestly, it’s embarrassing that I have to add a /s for people to understand
Your basing your entire argument on the assumptions that every generative models is trained on copyright works and also that training AI on copyrighted works is not Fair Use.
The first assumption is just false and the second assumption is not built on any established legal grounds in Western countries and is completely false in other countries with different legal systems.
It is already at that point.
People only notice the generated works that they notice, they don’t notice the generated elements that they don’t notice.
They assume that they can “just tell” if generative AI was used, but the reality is that it’s being used in a lot of development processes in place of human effort. Things like generative fill in Photoshop or making variations of a texture are 100x faster to do with AI tools and are used all the time.
This is definitely a topic where a vast majority of people have been “informed” of their opinions by social media memes instead of through a reasoned examination of the situation.
People who’re probably too young to have ever lived through major technology breakthroughs.
This same “debate” always happens. When digital cameras were being developed, their users were seen as posers encroaching on the terf of “Real Photographers”.
You’d hear “Now just anybody can take pictures and call themselves a photographer?”
Or “It takes no skill to take a digital photograph, you can just manipulate the image in Photoshop to create a fake image that Real Photographers have to work years developing the skills to capture”
Computers were things that some people, reluctantly, had to use for business but could never be useful to the average person. Smartphones were ridiculous toys for out of touch tech nerds. Social Media was an oxymoron because social people don’t use the Internet. GPS is just a toy for hikers and people that are too dumb to own paper maps. Etc, etc, etc
It’s the same neo-luddite gatekeeping that’s happening towards AI. Any technology that puts capabilities in the hands of regular people is viewed by some people as fundamentally stealing from professionals.
And, since the predictable response is to make some arcane copyright claim and declare training “stealing”: Not all AI is trained on copyrighted materials.
AI slop
That’s not what this does though.
To me, AI slop is people generating entire fake websites full of SEO terms but no information. Or people using AI tools to repost popular YouTube content. Completely worthless content that only exists to fool people.
Steam’s filter removed any game that reports using generative models at all.
That’s simply not useful unless your idea of AI slop is “someone used AI”.
So soon? I almost had this barricade destroyed