3 ms·
But the image wasn't "copied". An AI was trained from it, and the common analogy is to how humans learn from what they see. The question at hand is: Is it et
by wccrawford 4y ago
But the image wasn't "copied". An AI was trained from it, and the common analogy is to how humans learn from what they see.
The question at hand is: Is it ethical for an AI to produce images from images of questionable source. All the current AIs are trained from tons of images from the web, and there's no way to guarantee they weren't polluted with images that they didn't have permission for.
We've decided that it is ethical for humans to do that. But that's at least partly because it's impossible to create art otherwise. You're always exposed to other people's art. An AI doesn't have that problem, and additionally has a much, much better memory... And the actual creation process is different.
I think it's a really interesting ethical dilemma and haven't decided what side I'm on yet.
But like the author, a "vegan" image AI would be very welcome. I think it wouldn't be nearly as useful because a lot of modern concepts would be missing. But it'd still be welcome.
- visarga 4y ago> But like the author, a "vegan" image AI would be very welcome. Say artist A is afraid of AI and doesn't want his paintings be used in training. The model will never generate anything like A unless A is copying someone else. In time the amount of AI generated images is going to grow, it will flood the web and social networks, maybe evolve in new forms, and A will have no impact, no influence, won't be quoted. Deleted from the AI mind means deleted from the social awareness.