[jimmaswell]

What a senseless, selfish, petty thing to attempt. To not only deprive systems ultimately benefitting humanity of training content for no possible tangible benefit to yourself, but to try to sabotage them because you think it's theft for a computer to learn from patterns in an image no differently from a human artist (who will often outright trace existing works to train their neural nets, but it's ok when they do it because uh.. uh humans are special!)

[aguaviva]

What a senseless, selfish, petty thing to attempt.

I would apply those adjectives to the companies (or researchers out for accolades and citations) who attempt to build their systems based on the non-consensual data extraction in the first place.

To not only deprive systems ultimately benefitting humanity ...

By and large, these systems are built to finance the lush early retirements of the founders, investors and high-level ICs of these companies -- not to benefit humanity. Whether they even benefit humanity as a side effect is very much open to question.

If these companies won't pay, or even condescend to ask permission for access - fuck 'em.

[jimmaswell]

No one needs consent to learn from public information. If an AI can look at your drawing and code, then later draw a correct elbow and make the right API call for someone, they have benefitted without taking anything away from you. To try to stop this process because you think you deserve royalties and consent every time someone uses a fact they learned from you would be absurdly entitled.

[aguaviva]

If an AI can look at your drawing and code, then later draw a correct elbow and make the right API call for someone, they have benefitted without taking anything away from you.

This is like saying if a publishing company takes excerpts from your work, and builds products from it -- without your permission, and of course without paying you royalties of any kind -- they have benefitted without taking anything away from you.

The tech companies call this "learning" of course, but that's just subterfuge.

[throw10920]

> What a senseless, selfish, petty thing to attempt

This is clearly not selfishness. Selfishness is believing you're entitled to other people's work for free, which is the implicit assumption made by people claiming that they should be able to train their models on your work.

Selfishness is trying to take other people's work and turn it onto an AI model without compensating them on their turns. This demonstrates extreme entitlement, lack of a consistent moral system, and a fundamental ignorance of basic economics.

> no differently from a human artist

Yes, humans are objectively different from computers, including neural networks. Humans are sentient, and existing AI is not. It's not even accurate to say that humans have "neural nets" in their brains, because human cognition not understood.

The AI poisoning technique is very moral - if someone doesn't explicitly contact me and ask me for permission to train on my data, then they absolutely deserve a corrupt model. I think I'll do this.

[jimmaswell]

Entitlement is expecting a royalty from someone who saw your publicly posted art and learned anatomy from it. Selfishness is attempting to sabotage it so the learner is mislead into learning wrong anatomy. Lack of a consistent moral system is believing these are variably wrong or right to do when it's a meat neural net or a digital neural net in question. And finally, thinking any such loom-stomping tantrum will meaningfully halt progress and let you keep art creation in exactly the same state as the past is a fundamental ignorance of economics.

[throw10920]

Your comment demonstrates a complete lack of both reading comprehension and basic logic, as every single claim made was already either refuted by me, or isn't a logical argument at all.

> Entitlement is expecting a royalty from someone who saw your publicly posted art and learned anatomy from it.

As I already pointed out, it's extremely clear that AI are not humans nor are remotely comparable to them (objectively from both a physical and a functional perspective, and morally from the perspective of the vast majority of people holding on to wildly different moral systems, both inconsistent and consistent), so this is completely irrelevant, and additionally not what I claimed (also known as a "strawman fallacy").

Additionally, it is objectively not entitlement to expect payment from someone who consumes your content. If someone posts a learning resource as a paid course on a platform like Udemy, then paying them is morally required - you have to obey the license that the creator makes the content accessible under. Furthermore, the vast majority of the content publicly posted on the internet is not done so under the assumption that it will be used for AI training data - if someone publishes their work for other humans to view for free, that does not extend to a license for AI developers to use it to train for free, which is exactly what the article is about.

> Selfishness is attempting to sabotage it so the learner is mislead into learning wrong anatomy.

See above.

> Lack of a consistent moral system is believing these are variably wrong or right to do when it's a meat neural net or a digital neural net in question.

Objectively incorrect. I can describe a moral system that's non-arbitrary and consistent and perfectly delineates the boundaries between humans and artificial intelligences, and the rights ascribed to both. You cannot. (if you think you can, you're welcome to put it here, and I'll show you why it's inconsistent and/or arbitrary)

Further demonstrating the issues with reading comprehension, you missed/ignored the statement that I made that "It's not even accurate to say that humans have "neural nets" in their brains, because human cognition [is] not understood." which neuters your claims.

> And finally, thinking any such loom-stomping tantrum

The only person making emotionally manipulative fallacies is you. I've articulated my points logically - you've made multiple fallacies, logical mistakes, and your entire first comment was emotional pleading without a shred of logic or reason.

> will meaningfully halt progress and let you keep art creation in exactly the same state as the past

Yet another strawman argument and/or reading comprehension failure. I never claimed that it was possible, necessary, or desirable to keep art creation in the same state. You really didn't read my comment before replying.

> is a fundamental ignorance of economics

...and so this isn't valid. However, I can point out the mistake that you initially made - you believe it's economically viable for those training AI to steal the work of artists and use it to replace them. It isn't.

Your entire comment reads like an AI response that attempted to mirror the structure of mine without any of the understanding, or the ability to make coherent arguments.