5 ms·

I recently talked with a concept artist about DALL-E and first thing they mentioned was "you know that's all stolen art, right?" Immediately made me think of Gi

I recently talked with a concept artist about DALL-E and first thing they mentioned was "you know that's all stolen art, right?" Immediately made me think of GitHub Copilot. However the artists being featured in DALL-E's newsletters can't stop gushing about 'the new instrument they are learning how to play' and other such metaphors that are meant to launder what's going on. My theory is that the professions most at-risk for automation are acting on their anxieties. Must not be a lot of freelance artists on HN, and a whole lot of programmers. I think the artists have an even clearer case. I don't think GitHub Copilot is ready to steal anyone's job yet. But DALL-E is poised to replace all formerly commissioned filler art for magazines, marketing sites, and blogs. Now the only point to hiring a human is to say you hired a human. Our filler art is farm-to-table.

scifibestfi 4y ago
Where did they get the art from anyway? Do they have a list of sources anywhere?
trop 4y ago
Quite true. Best case, we're seeing DJ Spooky style culture jamming/remixing. But more likely it is as you write. On the other hand, the market for stock photography was already decimated by the internet. Where previously skilled photographers would create libraries of images to exemplify various terms and sell these as stock, in the last decade or so, an art director with the aid of a search engine could rapidly produce similar results.
anhner 4y ago
I first read the artist's reply as "you know all art is stolen, right" which made more sense to me. If you look at the history of art, you'd also know that it's true.
imdsm 4y ago
Having used copilot for over a year now, it isn't there to replace programmers. It isn't called GitHub Pilot, and it doesn't do well with generating original ideas. Sure, if your job is to create sign up forms in HTML then sure, it'll do your job in a second, but if you're creating more complex systems, copilot is just there to help save you time when writing code (which is just implementing ideas). Think of it like a set of powertools saving you time over manual tools.
- padolsey 4y ago
  Agreed. But I also understand the anxieties. I'd say a very significant % of programmers are not creating complex systems; they're coding up mostly CRUD UIs that have a great deal in common. It's getting to that inflection point where less programmers might be needed [??] ... Let's wait and see.
jraph 4y ago
> My theory is that the professions most at-risk for automation are acting on their anxieties That's not my problem with Copilot. I think tools and methods that can free human from some amount of work are good in a correctly organized society. They have been existing for a long time, too. They let us free time for other stuff that can't be automated. This extra free time could theoretically let us have more leisure or rest time too. I also trust myself to be able to learn another job if mine can ever be automated. But I don't want my work to be reused under terms I don't approve of. There are some things I don't want to help with my work and this is reflected in the licenses I choose. I totally sympathize with artists who don't want their work to be reused in ways they don't like. I don't find this hard to understand. I also don't find it hard to understand that if an artist do some work that you should pay for to use is not happy with their work being reused without being paid. They should get paid a tiny bit for each generated art if theirs is in the training set, and only if they approve this use. That's would be only fair, the set would not be possible without those artists. (Good for me, my personal code is not on GitHub for other, older, reasons)
tekni5 4y ago
This entire concept of AI learning using copyrighted works is going to be really tested in courts at some point, perhaps very soon, if not already. However if the result is adequately different, I don't see how it is different from someone viewing other's work and then being "inspired" and creating something new. If you think about it the vast majority of things are built on top of existing ideas.

scifibestfi 4y ago

Where did they get the art from anyway? Do they have a list of sources anywhere?

trop 4y ago

Quite true. Best case, we're seeing DJ Spooky style culture jamming/remixing. But more likely it is as you write. On the other hand, the market for stock photography was already decimated by the internet. Where previously skilled photographers would create libraries of images to exemplify various terms and sell these as stock, in the last decade or so, an art director with the aid of a search engine could rapidly produce similar results.

anhner 4y ago

I first read the artist's reply as "you know all art is stolen, right" which made more sense to me. If you look at the history of art, you'd also know that it's true.

imdsm 4y ago

Having used copilot for over a year now, it isn't there to replace programmers. It isn't called GitHub Pilot, and it doesn't do well with generating original ideas. Sure, if your job is to create sign up forms in HTML then sure, it'll do your job in a second, but if you're creating more complex systems, copilot is just there to help save you time when writing code (which is just implementing ideas). Think of it like a set of powertools saving you time over manual tools.

padolsey 4y ago
Agreed. But I also understand the anxieties. I'd say a very significant % of programmers are not creating complex systems; they're coding up mostly CRUD UIs that have a great deal in common. It's getting to that inflection point where less programmers might be needed [??] ... Let's wait and see.

jraph 4y ago

> My theory is that the professions most at-risk for automation are acting on their anxieties That's not my problem with Copilot. I think tools and methods that can free human from some amount of work are good in a correctly organized society. They have been existing for a long time, too. They let us free time for other stuff that can't be automated. This extra free time could theoretically let us have more leisure or rest time too. I also trust myself to be able to learn another job if mine can ever be automated. But I don't want my work to be reused under terms I don't approve of. There are some things I don't want to help with my work and this is reflected in the licenses I choose. I totally sympathize with artists who don't want their work to be reused in ways they don't like. I don't find this hard to understand. I also don't find it hard to understand that if an artist do some work that you should pay for to use is not happy with their work being reused without being paid. They should get paid a tiny bit for each generated art if theirs is in the training set, and only if they approve this use. That's would be only fair, the set would not be possible without those artists. (Good for me, my personal code is not on GitHub for other, older, reasons)

tekni5 4y ago

This entire concept of AI learning using copyrighted works is going to be really tested in courts at some point, perhaps very soon, if not already. However if the result is adequately different, I don't see how it is different from someone viewing other's work and then being "inspired" and creating something new. If you think about it the vast majority of things are built on top of existing ideas.