> OpenAI, Adobe, and Microsoft now support California's AB 3211, which mandates watermarks on AI-generated content. Ewww. Gross.
What's gross? (not arguing, asking respectfully) The watermarks are on the content's metadata, not visibly on the images like stock photos have. In addition to allowing platforms to label some images as AI-generated to help curb misinformation, it potentially will make it easier for platforms to pay the actual content creators instead of reposters.
Good question! I'm a fan of all things being open source and giving away most if not all of our creative work to the free and open web. Part of this is just my long-standing perspective as a cypherpunk.
Practically, this means that less material can be used for "training" LLMs and other models which hurts both open source and commercial interests long-term. I believe that watermarking, especially from big corporates is a form of control and even regulatory capture, usually based out of fear (or loss of control). Rarely do these types of things actually protect anyone except those that sponsor it (or they think it does). They can find other, better ways to monetize without hurting the larger ecosystem.
My career was born off open source, many, many years ago and so I try to stand firm on these types of things. It feels like a form of (inverse) censorship which I'm not a fan of either.
Finally, I'm an austrian economics nerd and I believe that there's a place for reposters, just like there's a place for anyone who's trying to make their lives better via the means at their disposal. The result, ideally, is a free and open market where not just the best ideas are rewarded, but, the execution of those ideas.
I've also been working on open-source most of my career (j2objc.org is my current project), so I certainly agree with your points.
I wish I had a better answer for my friends who are writers and illustrators who are worried they won't have a career soon, but restricting new technology won't save those jobs, only retraining. My mom was a graphic designer who pasted up layout boards for articles, using photostats to resize text to fit. There are still graphic designers, but all of their tools and ways they work are completely different now, and I think the ones who made the transition are more fulfilled.
I agree and as an artist myself I've struggled directly with the challenge of using tools that I (historically) love while understanding the dynamics of capitalism, more specifically the fact that I only make money by selling what the customer actually wants, regardless of my personal feelings of how I go about delivering the thing customer's really want.
For instance, I can't imagine how successful someone would be without social media today for distribution. Artists who don't want to take the time to learn and use these tools would be, on the whole, less competitive in the larger market.
There are enough examples of artists who can feed themselves without the use of more modern tooling but this is rare.
> OpenAI, Adobe, and Microsoft now support California's AB 3211, which mandates watermarks on AI-generated content. Ewww. Gross.
What's gross? (not arguing, asking respectfully) The watermarks are on the content's metadata, not visibly on the images like stock photos have. In addition to allowing platforms to label some images as AI-generated to help curb misinformation, it potentially will make it easier for platforms to pay the actual content creators instead of reposters.
Good question! I'm a fan of all things being open source and giving away most if not all of our creative work to the free and open web. Part of this is just my long-standing perspective as a cypherpunk.
Practically, this means that less material can be used for "training" LLMs and other models which hurts both open source and commercial interests long-term. I believe that watermarking, especially from big corporates is a form of control and even regulatory capture, usually based out of fear (or loss of control). Rarely do these types of things actually protect anyone except those that sponsor it (or they think it does). They can find other, better ways to monetize without hurting the larger ecosystem.
My career was born off open source, many, many years ago and so I try to stand firm on these types of things. It feels like a form of (inverse) censorship which I'm not a fan of either.
Finally, I'm an austrian economics nerd and I believe that there's a place for reposters, just like there's a place for anyone who's trying to make their lives better via the means at their disposal. The result, ideally, is a free and open market where not just the best ideas are rewarded, but, the execution of those ideas.
Just a few initial thoughts. 🥰
I've also been working on open-source most of my career (j2objc.org is my current project), so I certainly agree with your points.
I wish I had a better answer for my friends who are writers and illustrators who are worried they won't have a career soon, but restricting new technology won't save those jobs, only retraining. My mom was a graphic designer who pasted up layout boards for articles, using photostats to resize text to fit. There are still graphic designers, but all of their tools and ways they work are completely different now, and I think the ones who made the transition are more fulfilled.
I agree and as an artist myself I've struggled directly with the challenge of using tools that I (historically) love while understanding the dynamics of capitalism, more specifically the fact that I only make money by selling what the customer actually wants, regardless of my personal feelings of how I go about delivering the thing customer's really want.
For instance, I can't imagine how successful someone would be without social media today for distribution. Artists who don't want to take the time to learn and use these tools would be, on the whole, less competitive in the larger market.
There are enough examples of artists who can feed themselves without the use of more modern tooling but this is rare.