There is a lot of discussion about intellectual property and artificial intellegence and that's not likely to change any time soon. There are two primary sides to the discussion from what I've seen, and they're covered at a basic level on both sides of the Shadiversity Love Letter to AI video and a counter argument from a self proclaimed Hollywood artist.
One of the things I find interesting in this fight is the complete inconsistency from both sides of the argument when it comes to property rights. It's almost an entirely emotional argument not really based around rights, liberty or property. It just boils down to a shift in profitability and a change in the art world when it comes to content creation.
Now, I personally believe that copyright should exist and be protected in perpetuity for as long as it can be maintained by the heirs of the creator, in the same way as personal and real property. Even that concept can be difficult to maintain when we consider fair use, history and the function of language (both literal and visual), which we will get to in this discussion.
Here's what I want to hit today:
- Typing words into a website or app does not make you an artist
- If AI art being trained on existing images "without compensating" the creators is theft, then artists who are influenced by existing images who don't compensate the original creators is also theft
- AI is new and innovative tool that artists can use to help them create. Adaptation will need to happen because the market is moving that direction regardless of anyone's feelings. It is not the end of the world any more than the industrial revolution was
