5 ms·
Ask HN: Is it ethical/correct for DALL-E to charge money?
Since it's using lots of copyrighted data and someone else work to be "trained", is it ok to charge money for it?
- WheelsAtLarge 4y agoYes, there's manpower and energy that goes into every image creation. Without a profit incentive the technology would mostly stagnate. So ya it makes sense to charge to keep things rolling.
- boredemployee 4y agoWell Idk about that. Many illicit activities also use manpower and energy, so I'm not sure if it's the best argument.
- tssva 4y agoIs it ethical/correct for an art student to study the techniques and copyrighted works of other artists in learning to create their own art? Was the 2nd impressionist painter ethical/correct?
- boredemployee 4y agoThat's completely different.
- verdverm 4y agoIn what way?
- boredemployee 4y agoHumans can't learn zillions of techniques, that's why we need to build an AI?
- verdverm 4y agoEvery human has built on the efforts and ideas of others. Nothing is truly novel Has the "ai" actually learned anything? Is it running itself or only when prompted?
- boredemployee 4y agoDid you ever try dall-e?
- verdverm 4y agoWhat is your response to each answer? Why is either answer important here? What if my questions are Socratic in nature?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- boredemployee 4y ago
- josephcsible 4y agoIs it ethical for Microsoft to charge for GitHub Copilot, since they didn't pay the programmers who provided the code it was trained on? Is it ethical for Elsevier to charge for scientific papers, since they didn't pay the scientists who wrote or peer reviewed them?
- boredemployee 4y agoThey all apply as well.
- muzani 4y agoI feel like the copyright issue is a proxy argument. What if a very large group of artists, around the level of Disney, created art for the purpose of training and selling their own AI artist? Would DISNEY-E be ethical if 100.0% legal? I suspect the real debate is the unfair advantage this puts in the hands of a few. Not copyright in the legal sense, but copyright in the labor sense. Which is a perfectly valid argument, but that brings us to debating relative ethics over the absolute ethics of copyright violation.
- ironmagma 4y agoThe original purpose of copyright was to incentivize artists to create more art. The question is, in a post-DALL-E world, is art still incentivized by said laws? Arguably not if any art can just be generated in a fraction of the time it would take to create it by hand.