• Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you were a robot that never needed to eat or sleep and could generate 10,000 tabletop RPGs an hour with little to no creative input then I might be worried about whether or not those media creators were compensated.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It absolutely should, especially when the “creator” is not a person. AI is not “inspired” by training data, and any comparisons to human artists being inspired by things they are exposed to are made out of ignorance of both the artistic process and how AI generates images and text.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s impossible to make any comparison between how AI and how humans make decisions without understanding the nature of consciousness. Simply understanding how AI works isn’t enough.

              • Femsoup [She/Her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair, my point was: how is it important that we understand how consciousness works to see that the way consciousness creates Art is not very comparable to a machine recognizing patterns?

                The commentor above has compared inspiration to the way AI Companies are using the labor of millions of artists for free. In this context I assume this is what they were hinting at when responding to “AI is not being inspired” with “we don’t know how consciousness works”

                • AEsheron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because one is a black box that very well may just be a much more advanced version of what current AI does. We don’t know yet. It’s possible that with the training of trillions of trillions of moments of experience a person has that an AI may be comparable.

                  I mean, the likelihood is basically zero, but it’s impossible to prove the negative. At the end of the day, our brains are just messy turing machines with a lot of built in shortcuts. The only things that set us apart is how much more complicated they are, and how much more training data we provide it. Unless we can crack consciousness, it’s very possible some day in the future we will build an incredibly rudimentary AGI without even realizing that it works the same way we do, scaled down. But without truly knowing how our own brain works fully, how can we begin to claim it does or doesn’t work like something else?

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            None of which means it is impossible to determine whether or not an algorithm that couldn’t exist without the work of countless artists should have the same IP rights as a human being making art (the answer is no).

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      When, not if, such a robot exists, do you imagine we’ll pay everyone who’d ever published a roleplaying game? Like a basic income exclusively for people who did art before The Training?

      Or should the people who want things that couldn’t exist without magic content engines be denied, to protect some prior business model? Bear in mind this is the literal Luddite position. Weavers smashed looms. Centuries later, how much fabric in your life do you take for granted, thanks to that machinery?

      ‘We have to stop this labor-saving technology because of capitalism’ is a boneheaded way to deal with any conflict between labor-saving technology… and capitalism.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know this is shocking to people who have never picked up a brush or written anything other than internet arguments after the state stopped mandating they do so when they graduated high school, but you can just create shit without AI. Literal children can do it.

        And there is no such thing as something that “couldn’t exist” without the content stealing algorithm. There is nothing it can create that humans can’t, but humans can create things it can’t.

        There’s also something hilarious about the idea that the real drag on the artistic process was the creating art part. God almighty, I’d rather be a Luddite than a Philistine.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fuck off.

          If that sounds needlessly blunt, no, it’s far kinder than your vile opening insult, which you can’t even keep straight - immediately noting that everyone, even children, has done an art at some point.

          So maybe this discussion of wild new technology versus 17th-century law and the grindstone of capitalism isn’t about individual moral failings of people who disagree with you.

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those 10000 tabletop RPGs will almost certainly be completely worthless on their own, but might contain some novel ideas. Until a human comes by and scours it for ideas and combines it. It could very well be that in the same time it could only create 1 coherent tabletop RPG idea.

      Should be mentioned though, AIs don’t run for free either, they cost quite a lot of electricity and require expensive hardware.