AI-generated images now appearing in Google image search results
AI-generated images now appearing in Google image search results
Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120
Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, they would have started appearing in there from the first moment that someone created one and hosted it somewhere, no? So it's already been a thing for a couple years now, I believe.
Yeah but AI is a buzz word and hating it is fun at the current moment!
Well it is pretty shitty though. It needs conscousness and feelings. That crap out there is barely AI.
I'm wondering if we give AI consciousness is it more likely to identify humans as a threat to the Earth and try to eliminate us or would it empathize with it's creators? Seems risky...
Humans are not a threat to the Earth. Do you mean that humans are a threat to the environment? That would mean that we're a threat to ourselves. It wouldn't make sense to destroy us to save us from ourselves.
What if the ai towed all the humans beyond the environment?
Into another environment?
This line of thinking assumes it would prioritize Earth exclusively over humans, which is only likely if the AI is created with that specific intent.
Doesn't need to be super advanced AI to be used as a tool by irresponsible or malicious humans.
Rather hypocritical of you to do the exact same thing you're accusing others of: hating on a strawman.
Pretty soon, stupid shit Musk does will start being posted here.
Whaddya mean nearly every tech article posted here are variations of "Elon bad upvotes to the left"
Nothing like the thrill of being part of an angry mob! All the dopamine of righteous fury, none of the responsibility.
Ironic how your comment is centered around hating a group too, except you're doing it on behalf of large corporations that are stealing other people's work and polluting search results with soulless crap.
If I look up art on Google, I would want to see art, not AI slop. And until AI slop starts citing its sources so we can find the actual creative minds behind what it generated, searches are becoming more worthless.
Or you can just create a straw man to hate I guess
Lol at this account spamming AI related posts with angry unintelligible comments and trying to bait people into arguments
Zero art has been stolen.
You cannot steal a jpg.
And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.
And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.
Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.
You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?
The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.
The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).
You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?
Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It's an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.
he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.
I mean, it really isn't. It's the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It's how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It's how small bands have at least some protection.
I do like your libertarian line of reasoning. If the law doesn't work very well, it should be abolished. I've seen people say the same thing about the EPA and OSHA.
The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.
OpenAI corporation is stealing people's work
Oh did they break into their house and take their only version?
Copying is not theft.
In other words, you believe James Somerton did nothing wrong?
Whatever you call stealing from the powerless and giving to the powerful.
Maybe you think plagiarist deserve more ad revenue than the minorities they plagiarize from. I think your defense of the powerful is pretty gross, and I hope you are at least getting paid for it.
It's really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just "copyright bad."
It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.
People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that
But isn't it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it's harming?
deleted
Copyright is not the same thing as intellectual property though
Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while "intellectual property" is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
So do you support what James Somerton did to small queer creators?
I have no idea who that is.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yDp3cB5fHXQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Intellectual property comes before any of those things. If I paint a picture, it's my intellectual property whether I apply for some legal definition or not.
It's not the same thing as a copyright. Anyone can have intellectual property
That is certainly an opinion.
deleted
OpenAI Corp applauds your defense of their theft
The music industry wants to honour you at their next awards night for fighting piracy.
I want protections for all smaller artists. Why are you fighting on behalf of OpenAI?
Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?
You're fighting for them because you don't want them to have barriers in their corporate growth. Okay.
IP laws are a last resort in encouraging people to be creative. Remind me, which of us hate creativity?
Um no, we're defending actual open AI models, I couldn't give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don't.
You're actually advocating for the big corporations, what's going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?
As long as you are willing to admit that you are okay with plagiarists like James Somerton stealing the words of minority authors and large corporations like Marvel stealing the content of small comic artists verbatim and publishing them.
I'm not sure how that helps anyone, but you seem convicted in your absolutism.
I fail to see what he or your comment has to do with Generative AI models, which is what we are talking about.
I don't think you fully understand how Generative AIs work. The input data is used in a similar, but far more rudimentary way, to learn as humans do. The model itself contains no recognizable original data, just a bunch of numbers, math and weights in an attempt to simulate the neurons and synaptic pathways that our brains form when we learn things.
Yes, a carefully crafted prompt can get it to spit out a near identical copy of something it was trained on (assuming it had been trained on enough data of the target artist to begin with), but so can humans. In those cases humans have gotten in trouble when attempting to profit off it and therefore in that case justice must be served regardless of if it was AI or human that reproduced it.
But to use something that was publicly available on the Internet for input is fair game just as any human might look at a sampling of images to nail down a certain style. Humans are just far more efficient at it with far far less needed data
So does something become less plagiaristic if the plagiarizer can't provide attribution?
And no, AI does not learn, so you cannot compare it to a human. Passing the Chinese room test does not mean you are a native Chinese speaker.
Not all AIs do, the more "traditional" ones that you're probably thinking of don't. The ones that are generating text, images and video, however, are based on Generative Adversarial Networks a type of Deep learning Neural Network and those do learn albeit in a rudimentary fashion compared to humans, but learning none the less.
Whether attempting to oversimplify or anthropomorphize, no, computers do not learn. We are not, in fact, on the way to creating creativity.
I doubt you would find them as a top result. Sure it would be somewhere in the results, but with the scale it can become an actual problem