changing our copyright system requires a change in economy 1°, as this liberation speech of abuse coming from having rights of your creation by citing thoughtful and efficient dishwasher trays or music plugins or hardware that people must wait ~ 20 years to put their hands on, feels pretty right but wouldn't if pioneers aren't exploiting economically the product or even better, releasing it as open-source technology because we believe in collaboration...
generative AI is being backed by artists, probably without their consent & the problem is deeper. a bunch of individuals are excited by their increase in productivity or by creating stuff @ fields they would never be able to tackle... which is reasonable specially when you don't like cooperating with other people (which can be more than a faster way of reaching the end goal... like a whole fulfilling journey of meaningful shares) but unless you are painting some roof with all the resources to do it full time for years and being so abstracted into it, that sometimes you forget that you should eat or sleep or you really love the state of creating because it's a necessity and not because you need to pay your bills; what's art if no one is consuming? sure you can create stuff just for your loved ones but are or will they truly enjoy it? as sometimes love(ing) is about donating yourself even when you don't feel like. experiences and degrees of truth may vary but as you as an indie scale your bits, big companies also will & differently than you, they'll have a dedicated artist for each spectrum of their creation or various curators, so while you may get times more productive, they may get even more and lets not get into big companies expensive and extensive marketing?
what are the ethics of open/closed-source generative models? is bringing the CC type of license a try of liberating usage through a gray shade? as you may make money out of it, for example, by asking for donations and even if you live a frugal life, you are still violating someone... will non-commercial licenses endure over this type of thing? which artist has resources to prove their work is at weight A of software B and sue, who can not? are you sitting in a lobbyist country? or one that doesn't care at all? are we into developing and refining FOSS for some big fish pair it with their training weights that mortals won't be able to touch? where is the generative AIs with transparency on their training weight? @ 26/06/2024 we could find an OpenAI page showing examples of their technology running on consumer grade GPUs with the following input: "there are no visible texts or logos in the video". is the company running on a budget? as asking sources the clean input of their creation so we don't have watermarks or subtitles remnants feels professional... specially when you ask trillion of dollars to create a dedicated chip for "your" technology
and here's the cold,
despite you now being able to create generic art or be more productive, all this technology is feeding an empire that is closed source and well, conflict minerals are still a thing and they are required to make hardware,
blood.
RETURN generative AI is being backed by artists, probably without their consent & the problem is deeper. a bunch of individuals are excited by their increase in productivity or by creating stuff @ fields they would never be able to tackle... which is reasonable specially when you don't like cooperating with other people (which can be more than a faster way of reaching the end goal... like a whole fulfilling journey of meaningful shares) but unless you are painting some roof with all the resources to do it full time for years and being so abstracted into it, that sometimes you forget that you should eat or sleep or you really love the state of creating because it's a necessity and not because you need to pay your bills; what's art if no one is consuming? sure you can create stuff just for your loved ones but are or will they truly enjoy it? as sometimes love(ing) is about donating yourself even when you don't feel like. experiences and degrees of truth may vary but as you as an indie scale your bits, big companies also will & differently than you, they'll have a dedicated artist for each spectrum of their creation or various curators, so while you may get times more productive, they may get even more and lets not get into big companies expensive and extensive marketing?
what are the ethics of open/closed-source generative models? is bringing the CC type of license a try of liberating usage through a gray shade? as you may make money out of it, for example, by asking for donations and even if you live a frugal life, you are still violating someone... will non-commercial licenses endure over this type of thing? which artist has resources to prove their work is at weight A of software B and sue, who can not? are you sitting in a lobbyist country? or one that doesn't care at all? are we into developing and refining FOSS for some big fish pair it with their training weights that mortals won't be able to touch? where is the generative AIs with transparency on their training weight? @ 26/06/2024 we could find an OpenAI page showing examples of their technology running on consumer grade GPUs with the following input: "there are no visible texts or logos in the video". is the company running on a budget? as asking sources the clean input of their creation so we don't have watermarks or subtitles remnants feels professional... specially when you ask trillion of dollars to create a dedicated chip for "your" technology
and here's the cold,
despite you now being able to create generic art or be more productive, all this technology is feeding an empire that is closed source and well, conflict minerals are still a thing and they are required to make hardware,
blood.