OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power
-
first let's get something out of the way
the actual way that copyright works is that a few giant megacorps buy up everything and they end up owning copyrights to the vast majority of recognizable content.
so for example in 2019 over half of the movies released in theaters was owned by Disney. The same company that unilaterally has the ability to change US federal law when convenient for them.
studio ghibli is no different- they're a subsidiary of Nippon Television which has a $2B+ annual revenue
so keep in mind when you advocate here for stronger copyright protections, you are essentially saying that the biggest companies in the world deserve more money.
2nd- the "style" is not copyrightable. anybody can mimic the style. and guess what? if I make a cartoon and I make it look like studio ghibli style.. people are still gonna recognize it as "studio ghibli" style. they are basically getting free marketing. they are not losing out here.
I’m not entirely sure what this style even is - wouldn’t this same argument apply to Apple’s “Memoji” that has been out a few years?
-
As you have described the situation my question is if it would be similar to copyright Donald duck, despite not having drawn all possible poses and situations?
That's already the case. There would be two copyrights for a cartoon for Donald duck, and possibly, in fact likely, many others.
A copyright is essentially a right of enforcement. You don't have to register anything or file anything in order to gain that right. It's a right to sue someone to enjoin further use and potentially to recoup money damages if you can prove loss.
The standard for whether something is copyrightable at the outset is whether it is the product of a modicum of creativity, and reduced to a tangible medium of expression.
So far one cartoon of Donald duck, each drawn frame of the show would have its own copyright. Also, the character would have a copyright. The dialogue of the script would have another copyright. And the test for whether a particular character is something that can be copyrighted is to ask whether the character is separable from the overall work and whether the character is "well delineated."
Donald duck is certainly the product of creativity, it is reduced to a tangible medium of expression when it is drawn on paper, and it is the main character of the show and has its own personality and behavior. So it is pretty clearly of deserving protection. Although at this point in time, I believe some of Disney's earliest characters are now in the public domain, Even Mickey mouse, which people like my IP professor in law school said was never going to happen. This is because I believe in 1984 there was a law called the copyright act of 1984 but was colloquial referred to as the Mickey mouse copyright act. It was championed by Sonny Bono, who I believe was friends with Walt Disney personally, and which many said had the sole purpose of extending Mickey mouse's copyright for another 25 years or whatever it was. My memory is a little fuzzy on this. My professor figured that Disney was such a powerful institution that anytime Mickey mouse was about to fall into the public domain, Congress would stop it.
A doctrine sort of related to your question is called scen a faire. It is a French phrase which I have no doubt spelled wrong because I am on mobile. It means that elements essential to a scene of the kind which would be common to all scenes of that type, are not copyrightable. So this would include some background characters such as those that, despite being drawn in a creative way, are more so the product of the scene itself rather than any creativity. For example, if there is a scene in a cartoon where the character gets onto a train and hands the ticket to a ticket taker, the ticker taker character is probably not copyrightable.
-
No it isn't at all. Image to image "AI" is totally different from "AI" that denies insurance claims.
Nah dude this sounds to me lile a "duvide and conquer" strategy, make us believe that the grievances of one group contend with the grievances of another, quite the scab move.
-
Nah dude this sounds to me lile a "duvide and conquer" strategy, make us believe that the grievances of one group contend with the grievances of another, quite the scab move.
You can believe both are bad and complain about both while acknowledging they're separate things.
-
You can believe both are bad and complain about both while acknowledging they're separate things.
You can also acknowledge that both need their own space; If AI used for other nefarious purposes is so important to you your time is better spent making threads about that than implying threads about other issues are less serious.
-
You can also acknowledge that both need their own space; If AI used for other nefarious purposes is so important to you your time is better spent making threads about that than implying threads about other issues are less serious.
implying threads about other issues are less serious.
I never did this.
-
implying threads about other issues are less serious.
I never did this.
then this whole conversation is a little meaningless.
-
first let's get something out of the way
the actual way that copyright works is that a few giant megacorps buy up everything and they end up owning copyrights to the vast majority of recognizable content.
so for example in 2019 over half of the movies released in theaters was owned by Disney. The same company that unilaterally has the ability to change US federal law when convenient for them.
studio ghibli is no different- they're a subsidiary of Nippon Television which has a $2B+ annual revenue
so keep in mind when you advocate here for stronger copyright protections, you are essentially saying that the biggest companies in the world deserve more money.
2nd- the "style" is not copyrightable. anybody can mimic the style. and guess what? if I make a cartoon and I make it look like studio ghibli style.. people are still gonna recognize it as "studio ghibli" style. they are basically getting free marketing. they are not losing out here.
-
Anyone who doubles down this hard to defend AI art theft machines fucking hates human artists, who are a branch of intellectuals. Nazis are known to openly hate, abuse the rights of and mistreat intellectuals. Fuck kava.
You may or may not be correct in hating me but do not let my comments bring down the good name of kava
As for "doubling down so hard" I'd flip the message and ask you why you are simping for mega corps?
An AI is not doing anything a human wouldn't do. You look at a bunch of content. You learn from it and incorporate it in new synthesis.
It's not fundamentally different. So unless you can make a meaningful statement (beyond mild personal attacks) that illustrates the difference between the two, you will convince no-one
-
Do you know what the word unfettered means?
To answer your question, it's more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.
When approaching these ethical questions, I think it's best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me?
As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes.
Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio's founder, since it results in no actual harm.Since morality should be based on universal principles that don't depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents.
Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand?
The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it's fine.I don't see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it's more of a claim right than a wish.
In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust.
While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it's out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it.
Some wishes don't need to be fulfilled. -
To answer your question, it's more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.
When approaching these ethical questions, I think it's best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me?
As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes.
Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio's founder, since it results in no actual harm.Since morality should be based on universal principles that don't depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents.
Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand?
The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it's fine.I don't see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it's more of a claim right than a wish.
In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust.
While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it's out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it.
Some wishes don't need to be fulfilled.You really just wrote 4 paragraphs to say "I wanna make other people upset for my own personal gain at little to no benefit to the world at large"
-
You really just wrote 4 paragraphs to say "I wanna make other people upset for my own personal gain at little to no benefit to the world at large"
Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society.
Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world "at large".
The alternative would be bleak. -
Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society.
Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world "at large".
The alternative would be bleak.Okay, fine. I'll do big words with you.
Let's talk about the difference between Ethics and Morals. Ethics are what you individually follow, it's your Ethos. Morals are what a society follows.
It may be morally correct to say that "people should be allowed to do as they please" while also ethically correct to say "you shouldn't disrespect people's wishes."
You're right, that it is moral for someone to imitate art. At least, in our culture. But that's because most people follow the ethos that they can do and take as they please. I personally hold myself to a higher standard than that, and I hope you can do the same some day.
-
FWIW speech to text works really well on Apple stuff.
I’m not exactly sure what info you’re looking but: my gaming PC is headless and sits in a closet. I run ollama on that and I connect to it using a client called “ChatBox”. It’s got a gtx 3060 which fits the whole model, so it’s reasonably fast. I’ve tried the 32b model and it does work but slowly.
Honestly, ollama was so easy to setup, if you have any experience with computers I recommend giving it a shot. (Could be a great excuse to get a new gpu
)Yeah, I think the Apple speech to text is pretty decent, but I think on ChatGPT they use the whisper API to return the text and it just seems to be a lot more reliable, especially when it comes to understanding random words in context
How much VRAM do you have on the 3060 to be able to fit the whole thing on the GPU?
-
Yeah, I think the Apple speech to text is pretty decent, but I think on ChatGPT they use the whisper API to return the text and it just seems to be a lot more reliable, especially when it comes to understanding random words in context
How much VRAM do you have on the 3060 to be able to fit the whole thing on the GPU?
-
Okay, fine. I'll do big words with you.
Let's talk about the difference between Ethics and Morals. Ethics are what you individually follow, it's your Ethos. Morals are what a society follows.
It may be morally correct to say that "people should be allowed to do as they please" while also ethically correct to say "you shouldn't disrespect people's wishes."
You're right, that it is moral for someone to imitate art. At least, in our culture. But that's because most people follow the ethos that they can do and take as they please. I personally hold myself to a higher standard than that, and I hope you can do the same some day.
The "platinum rule"
- falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
- isn't reciprocal
- fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.
While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it's reciprocal.
The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want.
One way to treat others is to let them do as they want.
People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should.
Can we oppose them?
People wouldn't want that, so we shouldn't.The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong).
To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don't create unwanted obligations.
If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations.
Thus, we shouldn't disagree.In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust.
This platinum looks more like pyrite.In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art.
Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values.
"Respecting wishes" isn't a democratic value and neither is being a good person.
Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values.
Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists.
That's why I wrote it doesn't matter & such arguments are "futile & senseless".It's also why I don't state my position on it: it's a red herring that doesn't defend democratic values, which I'm arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic.
Even if I agree with (I could!), it's beside the point.I think it's worth pointing out that respect doesn't mean fulfilling someone's wishes or treating them however they want.
While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong.
Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation.
Claiming we should always respect people's wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong.
We can't satisfy everyone, nor are we here to.
This just seems like basic sense. -
The "platinum rule"
- falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
- isn't reciprocal
- fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.
While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it's reciprocal.
The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want.
One way to treat others is to let them do as they want.
People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should.
Can we oppose them?
People wouldn't want that, so we shouldn't.The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong).
To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don't create unwanted obligations.
If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations.
Thus, we shouldn't disagree.In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust.
This platinum looks more like pyrite.In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art.
Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values.
"Respecting wishes" isn't a democratic value and neither is being a good person.
Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values.
Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists.
That's why I wrote it doesn't matter & such arguments are "futile & senseless".It's also why I don't state my position on it: it's a red herring that doesn't defend democratic values, which I'm arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic.
Even if I agree with (I could!), it's beside the point.I think it's worth pointing out that respect doesn't mean fulfilling someone's wishes or treating them however they want.
While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong.
Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation.
Claiming we should always respect people's wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong.
We can't satisfy everyone, nor are we here to.
This just seems like basic sense.I'm just gonna chalk this up to you not understanding my points literally at all and stop having this conversation. You are insufferable to talk to and outright refuse to see my point at all.
-
System shared this topic
