4 ms·

False premise? Loads of artists hate DALL-E and AI art in general; they typically have much less feelings about Copilot. Unsurprisingly, for devs and DALL-E, it

by gwern 4y ago

False premise? Loads of artists hate DALL-E and AI art in general; they typically have much less feelings about Copilot. Unsurprisingly, for devs and DALL-E, it's the other way around.

fxtentacle 4y ago
Fully agree. We've been in discussions with image agencies who are afraid that their images will be remixed by AI and then distributed as CC0. If that happens, they are competing against free "derived works" of their own photos, but with the AI remixing proving that in court will be difficult and expensive. The result is that prices will go so low that they can't pay their photographers a fair salary anymore. I believe this is also why Adobe and some photography industry groups now heavily promote their "Content Authenticity" initiative which aims to make it illegal to use photos where there is no matching camera RAW file with Metadata. Because, obviously, AI-generated images don't have that.
- odessacubbage 4y ago
  i strongly feel that 'in the style of' prompts should be outright blacklisted honestly. other cases might be more vague but if you tell an ai to make a painting like james gurney, it can only do that by training itself on james gurney's body of work. by extension the creative commons license needs to be modified so that artists and photographers can decide whether or not to give permissions for their work to be datamined by ai.
  - fxtentacle 4y ago
    I agree. I wonder if using "james gurney" as a description here is a trademark issue. That said, I find things like "DALL-E 2 Variations" much more worrying. If you look at their flower shop example, it's difficult to argue that we still need stock photographers if you can get those variations for "free". But of course, the AI can only produce the variations, because some human took the original photo. So in effect the DALL-E variations then become a tool to obfuscate the original photographer so that you can use his/her work without paying. As for the datamining, I believe that's unrelated to the license. I believe in the US you are legally allowed to train your AI on any data, no matter what the original license was. Otherwise, Co-Pilot on GPL or MIT code would also not be permitted.
  - cmorez 4y ago
    The latter might be feasible (Though I doubt databrokers will let the current laissez-faire data-rights landscape go without a fight). The former is both wrong and infeasible. Bigger models get better at copying style with fewer examples. At some point, it'll be enough for a big model to see sufficiently few examples of real people drawing, "X in the style of Y" to get a sense for how to draw a thing in the style of Y. Or an end-user could just feed a single instance of parody art in some artists style, ask for variations, in-paint what they want, and voila! Copyright free [citation needed] style transfer. It will always be possible to launder style, even while adhering to promises to never touch an artists work (directly). Training on an artists entire body of work is not the only way (and thanks to copyright, a not even desirable) way to do so. edit: Open source models will also mean blacklists are unworkable.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    > if you tell an ai to make a painting like james gurney, it can only do that by training itself on james gurney's body of work. How is that different from telling a person to do the same?
- capableweb 4y ago
  > Introducing DALL-E 3: Now with matching RAW files, soon available in a closed platform near you
  - fxtentacle 4y ago
    The CAI idea is for camera manufacturers to cryptographically sign the RAW inside the camera to prevent that.
    - gwern 4y ago
      "Coming soon: DALL-E-in-a-box†". † light-tight box contains high-resolution WiFi-enabled tablet hooked up to camera whose button is automatically pushed by a small motorized mechanism. Subscription required.
      - fxtentacle 4y ago
        Add a Blockchain and that sounds oddly realistic.
- McBeige 4y ago
  Is photography becoming obsolete as a means of pure artistic expression? It might stay useful for documenting reality, and in the space where art and documentation meets (e.g. it's still nice to have pretty pictures in your review of the latest smartphone, so that incorporates a manner of artistic expression).

by gwern 4y ago

False premise? Loads of artists hate DALL-E and AI art in general; they typically have much less feelings about Copilot. Unsurprisingly, for devs and DALL-E, it's the other way around.

fxtentacle 4y ago

Fully agree. We've been in discussions with image agencies who are afraid that their images will be remixed by AI and then distributed as CC0. If that happens, they are competing against free "derived works" of their own photos, but with the AI remixing proving that in court will be difficult and expensive. The result is that prices will go so low that they can't pay their photographers a fair salary anymore. I believe this is also why Adobe and some photography industry groups now heavily promote their "Content Authenticity" initiative which aims to make it illegal to use photos where there is no matching camera RAW file with Metadata. Because, obviously, AI-generated images don't have that.

odessacubbage 4y ago
i strongly feel that 'in the style of' prompts should be outright blacklisted honestly. other cases might be more vague but if you tell an ai to make a painting like james gurney, it can only do that by training itself on james gurney's body of work. by extension the creative commons license needs to be modified so that artists and photographers can decide whether or not to give permissions for their work to be datamined by ai.
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  I agree. I wonder if using "james gurney" as a description here is a trademark issue. That said, I find things like "DALL-E 2 Variations" much more worrying. If you look at their flower shop example, it's difficult to argue that we still need stock photographers if you can get those variations for "free". But of course, the AI can only produce the variations, because some human took the original photo. So in effect the DALL-E variations then become a tool to obfuscate the original photographer so that you can use his/her work without paying. As for the datamining, I believe that's unrelated to the license. I believe in the US you are legally allowed to train your AI on any data, no matter what the original license was. Otherwise, Co-Pilot on GPL or MIT code would also not be permitted.
- cmorez 4y ago
  The latter might be feasible (Though I doubt databrokers will let the current laissez-faire data-rights landscape go without a fight). The former is both wrong and infeasible. Bigger models get better at copying style with fewer examples. At some point, it'll be enough for a big model to see sufficiently few examples of real people drawing, "X in the style of Y" to get a sense for how to draw a thing in the style of Y. Or an end-user could just feed a single instance of parody art in some artists style, ask for variations, in-paint what they want, and voila! Copyright free [citation needed] style transfer. It will always be possible to launder style, even while adhering to promises to never touch an artists work (directly). Training on an artists entire body of work is not the only way (and thanks to copyright, a not even desirable) way to do so. edit: Open source models will also mean blacklists are unworkable.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  > if you tell an ai to make a painting like james gurney, it can only do that by training itself on james gurney's body of work. How is that different from telling a person to do the same?
capableweb 4y ago
> Introducing DALL-E 3: Now with matching RAW files, soon available in a closed platform near you
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  The CAI idea is for camera manufacturers to cryptographically sign the RAW inside the camera to prevent that.
  - gwern 4y ago
    "Coming soon: DALL-E-in-a-box†". † light-tight box contains high-resolution WiFi-enabled tablet hooked up to camera whose button is automatically pushed by a small motorized mechanism. Subscription required.
    - fxtentacle 4y ago
      Add a Blockchain and that sounds oddly realistic.
McBeige 4y ago
Is photography becoming obsolete as a means of pure artistic expression? It might stay useful for documenting reality, and in the space where art and documentation meets (e.g. it's still nice to have pretty pictures in your review of the latest smartphone, so that incorporates a manner of artistic expression).