Because any value from it is just value that has been stolen from someone else.
What the “but it’s a useful tool!” people have never realized is that AI is just an attempt to sell existing human output back to us. The models are trained on our output, most often without consent. Ideally, if that output is so useful, then those people whose work is in the training data should be compensated.
Royalties work the same way and on the same principles. But AI models cannot directly query their training data in any way that makes their sources identifiable, and this numbers problem is commonly used as an excuse for why these folks cannot be compensated. That’s just a red herring, and it’s not the public’s problem.
The whole endeavor should not exist. It’s a good example of blindly developing something while having absolutely no concept of its negative impact on society.
Minimally whoever made the original chair, plus every single other person whose manual 3D models were fed into the training data so that you can get a “new” one with a click.
The fact that so many people are involved in the chain does not mean it isn’t theft. It’s simply obfuscated theft.
If you were to duplicate a unique Ikea design and sell it as your own, something tells me you’d have a legal issue.
Of course this is a bit different because you’re making a representation of the chair. But, it could in turn be used to replicate a chair. If you use an AI model to make a 3D representation of Ariel from the Little Mermaid, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Disney’s legal team would come after you if you tried to profit from it.
There is certainly a difference between intellectual property and other kinds. My response above assumes intellectual property, which doesn’t necessarily fit the chair example cleanly. But the point remains the same, and the distinction isn’t always relevant.
Because any value from it is just value that has been stolen from someone else.
What the “but it’s a useful tool!” people have never realized is that AI is just an attempt to sell existing human output back to us. The models are trained on our output, most often without consent. Ideally, if that output is so useful, then those people whose work is in the training data should be compensated.
Royalties work the same way and on the same principles. But AI models cannot directly query their training data in any way that makes their sources identifiable, and this numbers problem is commonly used as an excuse for why these folks cannot be compensated. That’s just a red herring, and it’s not the public’s problem.
The whole endeavor should not exist. It’s a good example of blindly developing something while having absolutely no concept of its negative impact on society.
looks at local model I’m confused is my stupid computer trying to sell me my own laziness?
Why rent a tool from home Depot when I can just use my own?
If you take a picture of a chair and turn it in a click into a perfect 3D model with AI, who are you stealing from?
Minimally whoever made the original chair, plus every single other person whose manual 3D models were fed into the training data so that you can get a “new” one with a click.
The fact that so many people are involved in the chain does not mean it isn’t theft. It’s simply obfuscated theft.
ikea?
If you were to duplicate a unique Ikea design and sell it as your own, something tells me you’d have a legal issue.
Of course this is a bit different because you’re making a representation of the chair. But, it could in turn be used to replicate a chair. If you use an AI model to make a 3D representation of Ariel from the Little Mermaid, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Disney’s legal team would come after you if you tried to profit from it.
There is certainly a difference between intellectual property and other kinds. My response above assumes intellectual property, which doesn’t necessarily fit the chair example cleanly. But the point remains the same, and the distinction isn’t always relevant.