@pbmwjbenz-bg3rb
16:43 I think that this similarity between AI and humans is like the similarity between airplanes and birds. They both fly, they have some similarities, but they also have many differences.
@pbmwjbenz-bg3rb
Do you think it's possible to apply what you said to AI? Especially if we see AI as a tool that speeds up production. I think there are a lot of ideas that will never be seen without a minimal visual product. I think AI can make the animation production process much faster, but the quality will decrease. But if the idea is good, maybe it will be seen that way and can get the funding to produce a better product.
@De7erm1ned
at 4:44 i found it ironic how the provided instance of regulation working is when the government is regulating ITSELF. patents are granted by the GOVERNMENT, or am i wrong about that? so its the government regulating itself, which translates to the government limiting itself. the result is a limited government, exactly what libertarians are asking for.
@Dingoh
16:37, honestly the GameBoy analogy is kind of completely off, and also yes AI does (on its core) work literally the same way our brains work, except our brains create new neurons too, which most models (at least the popular ones) don't. And as a bit of extra context for you, AI doesn't store information after training, its just numbers, that given a math function, output more numbers, the only thing I guess you could take as data is the token map, which stores parts of words and symbols, and for images the tokens are patterns, which it stacks on top of each other "randomly" to create images, it simply learns which ones to stack after which other ones to create said word tokens (prompt) I hope I explained myself because I noticed the might have been a misunderstanding in what AI is and how it works Although even with all that I will forever prefer human art over AI art, as the only difference is the effort that goes into it, and the story the artists chooses to represent through it :)
@pbmwjbenz-bg3rb
I hope that the AI issue will inspire more artists like you to speak out about copyright law. Copyright law affects not only art, but the entire economic system. 🙏🙏
@sams.3552
I'm just at the start of the video but my opinion has, over the years, become that non-human entities should not be permitted copyright. I also think that patent should be limited and trademarks should have no protection outside of commerce in the domain of the trademark
@ZiLongKay
Even as an artist, I think IP should be completely abolished. I'm a far-right libertarian just to keep that in mind. I believe that simply companies would fill in for the protection IP gives with marketing, boosting, etc. Culture would also most likely take a shift into having a demand for originality since there would be a lot of copying which would also naturally lead to more companies taking in that field since their incentivized due to demand = profit. This also leads to more competition and innovation so you would be getting lower prices and better quality and I believe that, that it will far boost artist more and that they will be actually better off without IP, it also allows for much more creativity. IP protects AI/intellectual monopolies. AI can lead to endless possibilities that we may not even know of and these big AI corps can use IP to lobby their way so that their intellectual property is protected forever (Example: Disney). Due to AI's infinite possibilities and high cost, there is already high barriers of entry. There is companies that are competing but one innovation, a major innovation (data breaching AI) can clear all competition out, basically making an intellectual monopoly. No one can say anything or they will be sued and that they can't prove it since to prove that, that AI is doing those stuff, you would have to go through it's code which is just data breaching in broad daylight and also that, that AI's code is also protected by IP. "How about the government regulate it?" well, again companies would just lobby and find a way to use the government to abuse that. Giving power to the government is also another way of saying, give more power to the rich.
@SuperBoyboys
Great to see you make another video! I really am looking forward to the webcomic, just from the concepts I saw on your Cara page. On the topic of the video though... When people say that an image model "learns like humans", what is meant by that isn't meant to imply something about a similar neurology, or a personhood, but simply a process analogy: a human learner observes the environment and body of work around them, then synthesizes something new. An image model also goes through a similar process in that narrow sense. What is meant by this analogy is to dispel the notion that the model somehow contains everything it ever saw, or that reproducing a style is somehow plagiarism. It's a limited scope refutation, not a broader comment on the personhood of neural models. When it comes to your contempt for data centers and ML technology and Silicon Valley... I can't really relate. I don't think it's a bad thing to build new data centers and develop more infrastructure. I think calling it a solution to a problem that doesn't exist is short sighted and misinformed. I do think it's concerning that investment into these technologies and infrastructure is backed by central bank credit inflation and government land grants, but that's the world we inherited from the Progressive Era, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Ted Roosevelt. It suggests to me that there's a level of malinvestment here just because of an artificially raised time preference. The connection between these technologies and their use for policing, state power, etc is all extremely concerning, but I just don't like the connection being made to environmentalism. On the outro about fishing rods, I find the disdain for mass production to be somewhat shocking. While the creator of the fishing rod deserves credit for his ingenuity, I don't think that artificially restricting the production of fishing rods, and therefore making everyone else poorer on his account, is a justifiable or advisable solution. Obviously, when we're talking about fishing rods, we're talking about something way more vitally connected to our lives, a tool for producing food, and so the perverse consequences of destroying wealth is more obvious than when we're talking about software or art, but the principle remains the same. I don't feel any kinship to this notion that a creator is entitled to destroy other people's wealth because he hasn't received the social status he deserves, even though I do agree there is a deserved social status for being a creator, artist, innovator, etc! I think that we should expect that in a world without intellectual monopoly protections that people would still search out for original creatives who come up with these ideas. There is just an apparent quality to the originator as opposed to slop copies, and everyone can see this even today. This model also accounts for the notion of iteration - a better version than the original gets its praises too.
@herrsnorre5164
I see you've acquired a lot of anarcho capitalists after you debate with zulu. I respect you a lot for having it and genuinely considering the views of a person with a completely different world view. One thing that might confuse you is ancaps use very different definitions compared to most people which might confuse you. Ancaps are very bad at explaining their ideology to a leyman.
@BrickGriff
No one should own art... That includes AI systems. Ownership grants the right to profit and profit is theft.
@PyriticBatman88