Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you create a produce in the employ of a company, that all your product belongs to them. So they are free to do with you creative results as they please.
Ain't saying it's rights, but if you understand that going in to the deal, then that is the way it is. It's like someone in a subdivision wanting to sue over the housing board forcing them to take a flag down when the bylaws clearly say that you can't fly a flag in front of you house. You agreed to the deal up front. It's not right, but that's what you agreed to.
AI is going to put many, many people out of work. I read somewhere where there is no longer a market for song writers, especially things like jingles for advertisements because AI can do it in an instant. Poetry, who need a poet when AI can produce something better that the best poet in seconds. How about writing a news article? Nope, just give AI the facts, and it can write a perfect article. Maybe an author, well AI can write a book as good as any human, probably better. So maybe you think you make a living as a pharmacist, or doctor. Soon AI will be able to handle most of that better then humans.
That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
Where is the justice in it working any other way when employed? (If you want to be the sole creator and copyright your work to sell directly freelance, then you have a monopoly on your work. You just have to be willing to do that.)
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
As an independent fine art professional I avoid using AI. Hanging on tight to traditional means of creating. But I feel like a dinosaur sitting on a little island surrounded by shark invested waters. Lots of little islands like me though. All artists are having to make this choice.
Yes. It's called work for hire, and every employee agrees to it. There is no difference if you turn the work product over to an AI or to another employee.
Buy AI can hallucinate and give wrong info. This has been shown for legal work in court. So how well would that work for medicine? I see lawsuits also coming up in the future (without the help of AI).
Royalties? He was paid to make that stuff. If he doesn't have a contract he already got his money. Now he needs to go freelance and do it the correct way if he wants royalties. The AI will run out of ways to use it eventually.
Seriously, and not to be negative, but prompt critical thinking hats.
Not to be jaded or suggest “learn to code” or anything, but if AI is able to create his value, isn’t there an opportunity for him to gain his job right back through AI?
I met a high level finance guy in a bar quite some time back, who, once he got quite drunk, started pondering over how we were going to find ways to keep people employed and money circulating as many jobs were increasingly destroyed over the next few decades.
Maybe this is a prompt for all of us to work on rethinking how we create value - “expand our thinking”?
Ai drones strapped with c4. Flown by the 1000s....China already has this tech. But who will be the first to use it in mass and not just 1 offs like in Ukraine
VFX industry is seeing layoffs to AI that can do much of the work with a few human hands to put together the work the AIs do. Of course the bloodbath that is the death of Hollywood is the other factor as well.
As a retired GD, I designed a lot of stuff for my Fortune 50 company, and they can have it. I did it for a paycheck, and they paid me an incredible salary to draw pretty pictures. I always called it refrigerator art - here for a week, then gone. Today's graphic design for large Corps adheres to Brand, there is no creativity left in it - it is all based on templates, or copying the latest trend.
People that create our memes have more talent than most ad agencies.
My uncle invented the device called an Air Chuck long long ago. In use all over the world. He worked for GM and they acquired it from him and he was never compensated.
This is at the heart of the abuse. These corporations got so big by colluding with the gov't so along with the "Internet Bill of Rights" (aka just applying the already existing rights to us bc the internet is public owned since it was made using tax dollars thru black money projects) the same could be said about these mega corporations
Yea that's not how it works. AI doesn't hard copy any input data, and you can't sue over it. Been tried, failed, as it should. This is no different from a new employee reading their predecessors work for inspiration/guidance. AI is gonna take jobs. Adapt or die. Can't make a living shoeing horses anymore either. Oh well.
Imo at the least he should have been made aware they were doing that, he signed up to create specific things for the company, not to train his replacement
Yea idk. It's tough if you are affected but it's the way the world works when technological advancements are made. AI content can't be copyrighted so either they have to continue to pay an artist or accept that their AI generated content is free for others to re-use. Also it takes an artist to do anything worthwhile with it. Actually making something exactly the way you want is quite difficult and there are programs to assist with it but they require human input too. At the end of the day those most affected are shitty online artists mad they can't sell 15 dollar commissions of furries or anime girls when an AI can manage those well enough for the folks into it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you create a produce in the employ of a company, that all your product belongs to them. So they are free to do with you creative results as they please.
Ain't saying it's rights, but if you understand that going in to the deal, then that is the way it is. It's like someone in a subdivision wanting to sue over the housing board forcing them to take a flag down when the bylaws clearly say that you can't fly a flag in front of you house. You agreed to the deal up front. It's not right, but that's what you agreed to.
AI is going to put many, many people out of work. I read somewhere where there is no longer a market for song writers, especially things like jingles for advertisements because AI can do it in an instant. Poetry, who need a poet when AI can produce something better that the best poet in seconds. How about writing a news article? Nope, just give AI the facts, and it can write a perfect article. Maybe an author, well AI can write a book as good as any human, probably better. So maybe you think you make a living as a pharmacist, or doctor. Soon AI will be able to handle most of that better then humans.
We are fucked, it what that spells out.
Then a provision should be made in the legal code to grant a creator the royalties to their creations if they're used to feed an AI
That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
That hasn't exactly been fair, either. Saying this as a researcher with patent work.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
Perhaps
Where is the justice in it working any other way when employed? (If you want to be the sole creator and copyright your work to sell directly freelance, then you have a monopoly on your work. You just have to be willing to do that.)
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
Agree.
But, but, we all learned to code!! /s
Code! I've never been able to get past "Hello World".
IKR I can say "Hello world" in seventeen different languages. ..working on assembly now... HAHA
As an independent fine art professional I avoid using AI. Hanging on tight to traditional means of creating. But I feel like a dinosaur sitting on a little island surrounded by shark invested waters. Lots of little islands like me though. All artists are having to make this choice.
Yes. It's called work for hire, and every employee agrees to it. There is no difference if you turn the work product over to an AI or to another employee.
The company owns everything you produce.
Buy AI can hallucinate and give wrong info. This has been shown for legal work in court. So how well would that work for medicine? I see lawsuits also coming up in the future (without the help of AI).
Royalties? He was paid to make that stuff. If he doesn't have a contract he already got his money. Now he needs to go freelance and do it the correct way if he wants royalties. The AI will run out of ways to use it eventually.
What’s the difference between AI and outsourcing?
Seriously, and not to be negative, but prompt critical thinking hats.
Not to be jaded or suggest “learn to code” or anything, but if AI is able to create his value, isn’t there an opportunity for him to gain his job right back through AI?
I met a high level finance guy in a bar quite some time back, who, once he got quite drunk, started pondering over how we were going to find ways to keep people employed and money circulating as many jobs were increasingly destroyed over the next few decades.
Maybe this is a prompt for all of us to work on rethinking how we create value - “expand our thinking”?
I can't wait to see AI bag groceries or fight a fire or kill the opposition on the battlefield. Some jobs still and always will require two arms.
Ai drones strapped with c4. Flown by the 1000s....China already has this tech. But who will be the first to use it in mass and not just 1 offs like in Ukraine
https://www.replacedbyrobot.info/59182/grocery-bagger
VFX industry is seeing layoffs to AI that can do much of the work with a few human hands to put together the work the AIs do. Of course the bloodbath that is the death of Hollywood is the other factor as well.
Hope they all learn to coal.
As a retired GD, I designed a lot of stuff for my Fortune 50 company, and they can have it. I did it for a paycheck, and they paid me an incredible salary to draw pretty pictures. I always called it refrigerator art - here for a week, then gone. Today's graphic design for large Corps adheres to Brand, there is no creativity left in it - it is all based on templates, or copying the latest trend.
People that create our memes have more talent than most ad agencies.
My uncle invented the device called an Air Chuck long long ago. In use all over the world. He worked for GM and they acquired it from him and he was never compensated.
This is at the heart of the abuse. These corporations got so big by colluding with the gov't so along with the "Internet Bill of Rights" (aka just applying the already existing rights to us bc the internet is public owned since it was made using tax dollars thru black money projects) the same could be said about these mega corporations
new world, new contracts. Going to be a painful transition.
Yea that's not how it works. AI doesn't hard copy any input data, and you can't sue over it. Been tried, failed, as it should. This is no different from a new employee reading their predecessors work for inspiration/guidance. AI is gonna take jobs. Adapt or die. Can't make a living shoeing horses anymore either. Oh well.
meh!
Imo at the least he should have been made aware they were doing that, he signed up to create specific things for the company, not to train his replacement
Yea idk. It's tough if you are affected but it's the way the world works when technological advancements are made. AI content can't be copyrighted so either they have to continue to pay an artist or accept that their AI generated content is free for others to re-use. Also it takes an artist to do anything worthwhile with it. Actually making something exactly the way you want is quite difficult and there are programs to assist with it but they require human input too. At the end of the day those most affected are shitty online artists mad they can't sell 15 dollar commissions of furries or anime girls when an AI can manage those well enough for the folks into it.