3 ms·

I find this completely unethical. You're basically exploiting every single artist whose art was used - without agreement - as training data for Dall-E. It woul

I find this completely unethical. You're basically exploiting every single artist whose art was used - without agreement - as training data for Dall-E. It would be different if all the training data was art that was explicitly licensed for this.

capableweb 4y ago
Isn't this similar to how every single piece of art is created? You look at bunch of propriety art, copy it to learn how to create it yourself (just for learning, not to sell those copies), eventually learn enough to start being able to create art from scratch and then start selling your unique art? Would watching a lot of animated movies in order to learn how to create good animated movies yourself be unethical as well?
- karpour 4y ago
  No, it's not. Art created by humans is not just looking at other art and trying to copy it. It's a culmination of a whole life of experiences and the personality of the artist. Looking at other peoples art is inspiration and useful for learning technique, but only a very small part of the bigger picture.
- trention 4y ago
  It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do X while forbidding AI to do X.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Ok, but is "logically consistent" the same as "ethical"?
    - trention 4y ago
      Presumably, if the ethics in question includes not leaving entire classes of skilled workers worldwide to hang like the States left its autoworkers hanging after the 70s - yes.
sabertoothed 4y ago
I have very mixed feelings on this topic. I share your sentiment -- BUT: Human brains also use anything the human can see, feel, hear for training. And what you produce in terms of creative outcome is a result of your experiences. But you don't owe anyone anything for training your human brain -- even if you use your brain to sell paintings, music etc.
- karpour 4y ago
  I think it's easy to - seeing the results - draw too many parallels between artificial neural networks and human brains. Art created by humans is very different. Dall-E gets fed tagged images and produces images that match tags. Art created by humans works on an entirely different level. And I stand by my point, it should be artists who decide whether their work should be used as training data for networks that get commercialized. If your work is used as training data, it is essentially an integral part of a product that is being sold without consent. Does this sound ethical?

capableweb 4y ago

Isn't this similar to how every single piece of art is created? You look at bunch of propriety art, copy it to learn how to create it yourself (just for learning, not to sell those copies), eventually learn enough to start being able to create art from scratch and then start selling your unique art? Would watching a lot of animated movies in order to learn how to create good animated movies yourself be unethical as well?

karpour 4y ago
No, it's not. Art created by humans is not just looking at other art and trying to copy it. It's a culmination of a whole life of experiences and the personality of the artist. Looking at other peoples art is inspiration and useful for learning technique, but only a very small part of the bigger picture.
trention 4y ago
It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do X while forbidding AI to do X.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Ok, but is "logically consistent" the same as "ethical"?
  - trention 4y ago
    Presumably, if the ethics in question includes not leaving entire classes of skilled workers worldwide to hang like the States left its autoworkers hanging after the 70s - yes.

sabertoothed 4y ago

I have very mixed feelings on this topic. I share your sentiment -- BUT: Human brains also use anything the human can see, feel, hear for training. And what you produce in terms of creative outcome is a result of your experiences. But you don't owe anyone anything for training your human brain -- even if you use your brain to sell paintings, music etc.

karpour 4y ago
I think it's easy to - seeing the results - draw too many parallels between artificial neural networks and human brains. Art created by humans is very different. Dall-E gets fed tagged images and produces images that match tags. Art created by humans works on an entirely different level. And I stand by my point, it should be artists who decide whether their work should be used as training data for networks that get commercialized. If your work is used as training data, it is essentially an integral part of a product that is being sold without consent. Does this sound ethical?