site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   16105 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can't wait for the deep philosophizing about precisely how much 'human' authorship is required for copyright to attach.

Because whatever it is, the current state of AI art lets you sprint right up to that line, stop on a dime before crossing it, and then stick your pinky toe over it if you want.

Seriously. If the human does the basic sketch outline of a given concept and feeds the sketch into the AI with a detailed prompt of what they want that sketch to eventually look like, how much of the authorship is theirs?

Or the reverse. Have the AI produce the basic sketch of the concept and then the artist develops it from there. Or the artist develops a sketch, has the AI turn it into a Paint-by-numbers picture, and the artists, following the AIs instructions, paints in the final details.

Or the AI produces the concept from scratch, but the artist goes in and modifies every part of it in some way such that every pixel of the image has been 'manually' changed, even if the base image is recognizable.

Or do the classic 'cheater' move of having the AI produce something originally, place some paper over the image with a backlight, and trace over it manually and claim the work as your own. Tracing over photographs is generally frowned upon, at least if you're a professional artist, but at least that's actual human hands producing the end result.

The AI can aid the artist to almost any degree in any stage of the process. It's parameters can be adjusted with finely grained particularity to have as much or as little influence as the law claims is required.

It's even crazier for written works. If an AI produces an essay that effectively conveys the ideas the 'writer' has in their head such that they are satisfied with publishing it with minimal edits, does that somehow invalidate the ideas as written? How much editing to make the AI's words 'your' words, especially if the AI's words already convey your thoughts in a perfectly cromulent manner? What if the writer just uses those 'predictive text' programs that lets them write faster by filling in the words it thinks the person wants, but the writer manually approves each one?

(Note, as a matter of pride I would still want to physically type out most of my correspondence, including comments like this. It seems like that is a fair expectation when you communicate with other humans whilst representing yourself as a human presenting their own ideas that you not filter it through a middleman. But again, what does 'filter through a middleman' mean in practice?)

And I'll even agree that it is 'wrong' to represent yourself as having artistic skills if you rely on the AI to actually produce the work, I'll agree that you shouldn't say that an AI work is 'yours,' certainly not without disclosing the fact that AI was involved.

But this particular angle of attack, making AI-produced works exempt from copyright, is not going to stem the tide that's coming and will only produce a lot of serious-sounding but absurd-in-practice rules and enforcement mechanisms that will waste a lot of people's time.

Artists are definitely NOT effectively winning people to their sides by being so whiny about the issue, rather than attempting to suggest reasonable policy prescriptions that might at least be politically viable.

A big part of it for me is that you generally want to believe you're communicating with another human who is capable of integrating information and learning and taking some of that information 'to heart' as it were.

NOT an automated bot that is incapable of changing it's mind. Time spent discussing stuff with an AI is genuinely wasted time, in this sense. So if I want other people to do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write and responding to it with 'genuine' interest, I can do them the courtesy of typing the words out myself so they are actually the product of my brain.

The question is, what is even a reasonable policy prescription here?

Requiring that people hold valid licenses for their entire training sets isn't even enforceable enough to do anything. And letting these things go unhampered means that you have machines that can launder any sort of intellectual property.

I'm not even sure where the law as it stands lands us. The result of that Github Copilot lawsuit is a total mystery to me for instance.

Requiring that people hold valid licenses for their entire training sets isn't even enforceable enough to do anything

Why do we think this is unenforceable? Unappetizing because it hits AI hard, sure, but surely not unenforceable.

NAI, who suffered a high-profile hack & went on to watch their model be used as the basis for a thousand merges and derivatives, recently posted an infographic about how you can use their (unique, supposedly) style tokens to identify if a model is derived from theirs, and even the rough degree to which it was mixed in.

Tokens (even unused tokens!) are identifiable components of the model file structure, and (probably?) have to be. Combinations of tokens (which almost all of the NAI style tokens are) would be harder if you didn't know them, but they're still testable in seconds on consumer GPU or minutes on CPU. But very few people are interested in controlling tokens, and while NAI isn't the only group, there's not a ton of artists there.

Artists want to enforce on the media-level output, which is... more complicated, at best.

Well how would you enforce it?

Any model without an associated public data set is presumed guilty.

ban proprietary ML

I mean I guess that works, and I don't even have objections to that. But I don't think presumed guilt is legally tractable.

Models don't have rights.

The people who make them do. The civil forfeiture argument was never convincing to anybody. I don't see how this is any different.

My hypothetical model is speech which is free by default and you need to prove it's illegal in court before you can censor me or you're denying me due process.

Otherwise, enjoy the crypto wars again, I'm sure we can find a way to make weights fit on a t shirt.

A completed model doesn't really have stored information about the datasets used to generate it in any accessible manner (not least of all because it could easily outsize the model by several orders of magnitude). Someone could easily say a model was generated on dataset X and instead use dataset X + dataset Y, and proving otherwise would be very hard at current understanding of how models work.

And there's a variety of complications downstream from that -- if the original model X was trained on purely legal data, and someone brings a tuned model that they say was only trained on a subselection from rights-compliant source, for example.

(And then there's the downstream economic forces: if half of the image hosts require you to give up whatever AI/ML rights for submission, then this goes wonky places even if most hardcore artists don't use them.)

Right the only way to make this work would be nothing up your sleeve training-wise. You'd provide your training set and if your model can't replicate, bam, you're busted.

You'd need to disclose not only your training set, and model, but also the training environment and initial configuration. And then someone would need to spend hundreds to hundreds of thousands to do the actual training.

That's an interestingly roundabout way of mass-banning, but it runs into the same problem as just trying to ban the tech, in that a lot of people are just going to smuggle AI-gen outputs as 'naturally'-generated.

You'd need to disclose not only your training set, and model, but also the training environment and initial configuration

Done and done.

That's an interestingly roundabout way of mass-banning

I'm ok with this.

a lot of people are just going to smuggle AI-gen outputs as 'naturally'-generated.

Which is going to happen anyway, in fact it already is happening.

The question is, what is even a reasonable policy prescription here?

If I were suggesting them, on behalf of artists, I might go with laws that specifically outlaw representing work that involved AI models above a certain size at any stage as 'human created.' I would suggest that limitations could be placed on the commercial use of AI art, particularly that used in marketing and production of mass media. A simple way to restrict this could be to render such creations as public domain works instantly.

Maybe require any time a model above a certain size is 'trained' the dataset being used must be registered with [government agency] and artists might have some process by which they can opt out of inclusion in the data.

Would these rules be hard to enforce? Wildly. Would they be relegated to irrelevance as improved models appear? Probably.

But these suggestions are at least isomorphic to existing regulatory regimes and could utilize processes that currently exist.

Would these rules be hard to enforce? Wildly. Would they be relegated to irrelevance as improved models appear? Probably.

Perhaps the human brain - even when there are many of them grouped together and collaborating - are unable to come up with reasonably enforceable regulations on AI-generated images that placate its naysayers, and we'll have to rely on some sort of advanced AI in the future to come up with such regulations. Because, yeah, it already looks like the cat's out of the bag at this point. The models that are out there are already very powerful and can run very quickly on old consumer-level hardware, so even if all development in this were to stop right now, the trouble will remain.

I would suggest that limitations could be placed on the commercial use of AI art, particularly that used in marketing and production of mass media. A simple way to restrict this could be to render such creations as public domain works instantly.

I think this would help to an extent, but just because some piece of image is in the public domain wouldn't prevent a business from using it and from having copyright over the final product. Neither Die Hard nor its soundtrack is in the public domain just because it used clips copied straight from Beethoven's 9th symphony. I expect that assets that really specify the product's brand, like, say, the design of the main character, might be forced to be completely human designed, though, which could help. But then again, perhaps trademark law could come into play to provide legal protections even if copyright were lost.

The models that are out there are already very powerful and can run very quickly on old consumer-level hardware, so even if all development in this were to stop right now, the trouble will remain.

A close analogy is to cryptography, which the government tried at first to regulate as literal weapons, but not only was this a ridiculous position, it was impossible in practice due to the nature of cryptography itself.

And now crypto is ubiquitous and, of course, runs on consumer grade hardware.

Hard to see AI taking a different path, honestly.

just because some piece of image is in the public domain wouldn't prevent a business from using it and from having copyright over the final product.

Well that's what I'm saying, if you use AI work in your commercial product, the law states now that the whole work is public domain.

Thus there is incentive on the creator's part to be very, VERY careful about what they include in their product and fastidious about keeping records to prove each step is non AI-generated. And creates an incentive on others to try and catch them in the act.

Well that's what I'm saying, if you use AI work in your commercial product, the law states now that the whole work is public domain.

Thus there is incentive on the creator's part to be very, VERY careful about what they include in their product and fastidious about keeping records to prove each step is non AI-generated. And creates an incentive on others to try and catch them in the act.

I see, so you mean essentially creating another type of copyright status that's a sort of "infectious public domain," where its mere use in another work "infects" the entirety of the work with "public domain" status. If this were implemented and enforced, it seems like it could work, but my guess is it that it would also effectively decimate the current entertainment industry. Having to fastidiously document every single brush stroke that went into creating every single background prop in a film or every single floor texture in a video game would increase the costs of production of these things massively, to the extent that I think the business case just wouldn't be there anymore for most companies. And I think such level of documentation would be required so as to prevent companies from trivially getting around the regulation with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

I suppose there could be multiple tiers of "infectious public domain" for AI generated images where businesses could use AI for some low level things but not others and still retain copyright over the final product so as to not to be so onerous to the production process, but I admit that's getting too deep into the details of things that I'm ignorant of for me to form a meaningful opinion on.

but my guess is it that it would also effectively decimate the current entertainment industry.

Not seeing the downside, personally.

Having to fastidiously document every single brush stroke that went into creating every single background prop in a film or every single floor texture in a video game would increase the costs of production of these things massively, to the extent that I think the business case just wouldn't be there anymore for most companies.

Yeah, but we'll have to do that anyway if our goal is to limit copyright to only human-created works.

I don't know how you solve this issue any other way.

And I think such level of documentation would be required so as to prevent companies from trivially getting around the regulation with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

Oh yes, there would be people who consider it worth the risk. Especially as it becomes way, way harder to tell AI art from human.

A simple one would be to just pay a given artist to sign off on AI art as if he was the creator, and who is willing to lie under oath and investigation that he personally created all of those works.

I suppose there could be multiple tiers of "infectious public domain" for AI generated images where businesses could use AI for some low level things but not others and still retain copyright over the final product so as to not to be so onerous to the production process,

Yeah concept art, storyboarding, rough drafts, all things that don't make it into the final, saleable product could probably escape scrutiny.

The way I'm conceiving this is that "if you publish a work for purpose of sale to the public, it must not contain AI generated content."

but my guess is it that it would also effectively decimate the current entertainment industry.

Not seeing the downside, personally.

Well, the issue is that the entire purpose of such regulations is to appease the people who depend on these industries for their income. If the regulations just destroy their income in a different way - instead of replacing 10 artists with 1 artist who uses AI to be 10x as productive, it's just replacing 10 companies that hire artists with just 1 company that hire artists - it seems like it wouldn't appease those people. The ultimate point of any law surrounding copyright or intellectual property in general is to protect incomes, after all.

Yeah concept art, storyboarding, rough drafts, all things that don't make it into the final, saleable product could probably escape scrutiny.

The way I'm conceiving this is that "if you publish a work for purpose of sale to the public, it must not contain AI generated content."

This seems workable, but also kind of a nightmare scenario for the people who would want these regulations. In this scenario, all the rote work that goes into producing the textures you actually see on the screen must be painstakingly hand-painted, but all the creative work that went into creating the concepts behind could have AI aid, thus reducing the number of the less rote, more creative artistic jobs. Perhaps better than AI being used in every step of the process at least, I suppose, and perhaps only a little worse than how it is now, since from what I understand, most art jobs in the industry tend to be rote work anyway.

Well that's what I'm saying, if you use AI work in your commercial product, the law states now that the whole work is public domain.

Do you have a citation for this? That sounds extremely unlikely to me and would completely upend my understanding of copyright law. Which isn't to say you're wrong as I'm not well versed in copyright law, but a lot of people I work with have been including AI-generated material in their commercial products for a while now and I'd be shocked if their legal teams okayed that if it made the whole work public domain.

EDIT: Nevermind, I missed that this was a hypothetical.

Yeah, I'm proposing a policy solution that might be politically viable, not one that currently exists.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats