New blog post "License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, and comics."→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1178/license-update-ai-derivation-prohibited-on-all-my-art-lore-stories-and-comics

[bstacey@icosahedron.website]

@f4grx @davidrevoy 1. Cat is now on meth
2. Tiles are wrong
3. Broken plate replaced by lamp? sourdough boule?
4. Curve to lower right is gone
5. Tears missing, crying is now disturbingly moe-ified
6. Hair is now "princess-y" in a way that makes me have a bad feeling about the training data
7. Hat brim reshaped in a way that loses character
8. Hat has grown a Pilgrim buckle

[alien@mastodon.green]

@davidrevoy why would someone do that omg and sending it to you? Wtf

[davidrevoy@framapiaf.org]

@skaphle Yes, and I'll do the short version: it is a AI bro scam, boosted by a large (and successful) marketing effort. It was defeated on day 1, and now remain with a user base like a cult, especially appreciated from non technical user who are ready to believe it.
That's sad, I wish something like that would work, be open-source, would run on Linux, and be done by serious peoples.

[davidrevoy@framapiaf.org]

@robinsyl I honestly felt mad about it the first times, before it became regular.
I sort of got used to it. During a recent holiday with my wife, she saw how my notifications were full of that, and it kept incoming; she is the one who told me it wasn't normal and I had to show that in a article.

[toonlink@fandom.ink]

@davidrevoy Oof, I kind of feel bad for that user, but they clearly didn't read the room! I'm not sure how anyone can read your Cepper&Parrot stories and think you would be pleased by an AI generation of a Cepper&Parrot story. 🫣

I'm glad that you're openly stating your stance, here. I see some folks implying that enforcement will be too hard, but I think that's beside the point. Enforcement starts by drawing a line in the sand, and stating your boundaries clearly.

I'm with you! o7

[marnic@framapiaf.org]

@davidrevoy
Il serait peut-être temps de créer une nouvelle licence type CC ou Art libre contre l'utilisation et modification par IA.

De même pour les licences logicielles d'ailleurs

[toonlink@fandom.ink]

@MarvinS HEH! I know this is done for larfs, but even that is too much reasoning for an LLM. They don't really comprehend what they're looking at or what they're outputting; it's all basically a numbers game.

After looking at a bazillion pictures, they figure out the statistical likelihood that this color pixel will be next to this other color pixel, and so on, until they reach the end. That's why a lot of gen AI looks the same, with all the quirks smoothed out and details genericized.

[bredroll@mas.to]

@h5e @f4grx @davidrevoy its like rocking up to a woodworking class with a CnC machine

[glitchypixel@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@davidrevoy
I was looking into this licence the other day. The "Filthy Human Hands" license.

https://whirling.top/fhh

Its not that anyone would care or respect licesnes anyway... But maybe this one can be useful somehow.

At the very least I appreciate the sentiment on that one.

[linebyline@mastoart.social]

@farbenstau @davidrevoy Probably can't use the CC trademarks, but the text of the licenses themselves is CC0. Which means derivative licenses should be in the clear as long as they're not misrepresented as being from the CC organization.

Of course, "have a lawyer look over any legal document you create" is still good advice.

[ltdroihurleur@toot.portes-imaginaire.org]

@marnic @davidrevoy
Tout à fait d'accord.

[linebyline@mastoart.social]

@davidrevoy Why would someone look at a bunch of comics about how much you hate AI and think that sending you AI clones of those comics was a good idea?

My guess: They don't think you'll like it, they think you're owned. See? This AI you hate so much can make comics as well as you can! (It can't.)

The other "offers" of course probably had AI do the work of deciding to e-mail you and everything, so whatever humans were involved probably neither knew nor cared. Spam casts a wide net after all.

[marvins@mastodon.de]

@ToonLink

Now that I think about it. Is it even an LLM, if its output is an image?

[toonlink@fandom.ink]

@MarvinS Mmmm that's a good question! I guess since it all runs on numbers and tokens, an image is the same data as a text, so I guess it depends on how "language" is defined.

Though, there was a time not too long ago when the popular ones couldn't output images at all.

[linebyline@mastoart.social]

@yuki2501 @davidrevoy Honestly?I think that may do more harm than good. The existing CC licenses, and TBH most FOSS licenses, almost certainly (by any reasonable interpretation) already don't allow what @cwebber called "attribution soup" elsewhere in this thread. True, AI bros ignore that, but they ignore all rights reserved too.

I just don't think it's wise to signal that *some* works are no-AI, because it implies that everything not so labeled is fair game, which I'm not willing to concede.

[gemlog@friendface.kalum.ca]

@davidrevoy I so admire you Sir. Your skill and work at your art and also all the time and talent you donate to our commons and teaching.

[patrick_massot@mathstodon.xyz]

@marnic @davidrevoy il y a https://www.humanscommons.org/ dans cette direction.

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@dajb @poleguy @cwebber @davidrevoy CC-BY does not allow AI training use because such use does not preserve attribution. It's great to be explicit about that, but there is no "the old license allowed it" loophole here.

[skaphle@social.tchncs.de]

@davidrevoy Oh no, I didn't know that... Too bad.

[evelynoctavia@c.im]

@davidrevoy wow, the ai colored version does actually look disgusting.