OpenAI's viral Studio Ghibli moment highlights AI copyright concerns | TechCrunch
OpenAI's viral Studio Ghibli moment highlights AI copyright concerns | TechCrunch
:( fuck it
Bloody hell. Studio Ghibli is pretty much the antithesis to AI "art". I can only imagine how Hayao Miyazaki feels about this.
There's a video of Miyazaki reacting to some experimental AI generated 3D character animations from some years ago where he says that the use of AI is an "insult to life itself"
Anyone who knows about Hayao would know that he's a narcissistic asshole. He'd probably treat this better than what he did go his son.
If you have to steal from all of humanity, it should belong to all of humanity.
That would at least be a step in the right direction.
copyright
We desperately need a new term to orient the convo around.
Cuz I don’t think the main issue is the assignable right to prohibit unlicensed access. Nor is copyright well-equipped to solve the actual problems.
The real issues are:
Like the term “ecology” managed to align the interests of activists concerned about littering/pollution, animal extinction, and climate change, we need a term that aligns these concerns.
Creative dignity?
I'm with you in that copyright isn't the issue. Creative dignity sounds better. Your point n3 is a big one for me.
But also part of the problem is that the arts are in essence human expression; it's personal and there is a sense of identity attached to every work of art even if it is anonymous. A person trying to emulate someone else's style will still add its own mark to their work. Some might call them a copycat and others may not care and love it. And at the end of the day, it's their choice. They've put effort learning a skill and the proof is in the artwork. That's not the case with AI fucking around anymore. If you are original, you will get ripped off in no time. And if you aren't, then your skills are now worthless anyway.
I feel similarly about the impact to art. Though, art is one of those elusive things where as soon as you try to define it, someone will produce a counterexample that dares you to deny its “art-ness”.
In some ways, we kinda had a trial run of this conversation with Andy Warhol (and the various people pretending to be Andy Warhol).
I have no doubt that people will continue to have interesting things to say, and that audiences will continue to seek them out. But the degree to which it becomes difficult to successfully make that end-to-end connection is an open question.
I hope we see a more decentralized version of C2PA take off. I fear it’ll take some sort of catastrophe like a deepfake-driven coup before there’s a serious effort to mainstream it. If that happens, and C2PA is the only option laying around, we might be in for a new era of corporate control over media. I’m genuinely on the fence about whether that’s better than being boiled alive in AI soup. It probably is.
That dog example was absolute shit too. Nothing at all like Ghibli style, just a shit illustration.
I mean you can see some similarities, and for the general public this does the trick - most people wouldn't notice. It is a good generic illustration though, just meh. Y'know. Plenty of that around. For me, the background really sucks, Ghibli backgrounds are so clean and atmospheric and this is obviously a knockoff a mile away. Which I'm glad for.
Thanks I don't know if I hate this or the original more
This one maybe ?
My two cents: There are so many good things that AI (or the relevant type and sub-type) can do to help humanity. This is simply not one of them, why would you train a model just to transform a picture into something with a "stolen" style? I mean, i guess it is actually cool, but that's it, people gonna use it to mass produce slop, in a style that isn't theirs or even the creators of the model. This is already happening before, but ah, it is "upgraded" now.
Sure, the style isn't copyrighted, but unless Studio Ghibli has stated that it's fine (likely not from what i have heard), it's basically legal theft, not like this is the first time it happened, though unfortunately. And what's more, it's for profit, and OpenAI isn't "open", those profits? None to Studio Ghibli.
Edit: I realized that you could say that real human artists can do the same thing, "legal theft" of styles or whatever, i personally think that's fine as long as they say that it's not their style or simply was inspired. My issue is that the required skill to do that just dropped so low, one can automate the mass production of AI slop, and there are now even more incentives to it.
Imagine wanting to live in a world where you can copyright styles.
I'd rather live in a world where the concept of "copyright" doesn't exist at all. Unfortunately we don't live in that world and art can be exchanged for money. As such, let's stick to trying to keep people from starving rather than pretending this is fine because the concept of capitalism is inherently broken, mkay?
I think it’s more nuanced than that. Copyright is just the only hammer available at the moment.
We should have some laws around media integrity, creative dignity, labor rights, etc. that we could use to fight back against the problematic parts of the AI empire without creating new problems for consumers, creators, and even the useful parts of AI.
But, for obvious reasons, lawmakers haven’t been as interested in protecting the arts as they have been in protecting legal monopolies.
