4 ms·

Then maybe we should remind about this 25,000:1 ratio when an artist complains about his copyrights being abused. The model doesn't have space to actually copy

Then maybe we should remind about this 25,000:1 ratio when an artist complains about his copyrights being abused. The model doesn't have space to actually copy his works inside, it can only memorise the equivalent of a thumbnail from each input. A very small thumbnail, scaled down 150:1 per width and height (square root of 25000). That's like a grain of rice on the screen.

DrSiemer 4y ago
That's not how it works though. Instead of applying arbitrary content detail reduction, the model is an attempt to distill the core of what makes a particular artist (or phrase, face, object etc) unique. When programming, it will often take a long time and a lot of code to get to a few final lines that do what you want. You cannot say the final result is a "thumbnail" of all previous efforts. Rather, it is the apotheosis of it. Some artists spend decades developing a style that looks like a kid could do it as well. Still, there is something unique in there, that a trained eye will recognize. Converting that particular style to a formula and making that freely available is at least somewhat morally ambiguous.
- holoduke 4y ago
  It's the same as someone trying to mimic a style. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly not something you could get copyrights from.
  - DrSiemer 4y ago
    It is not the same as trying to mimic a style. It is cloning the essence of a style and making it readily available to anyone who asks for it. Sure, it's not copyright infringement, but you could argue that this takes away from the hardship the original artist had to go through to perfect their style.
    - namarie 4y ago
      > Sure, it's not copyright infringement Which was precisely what the discussion was about. > But you could argue that this takes away from the hardship the original artist had to go through to perfect their style You could argue the same things about photoshop, a lot of other digital tools, drum machines, the photograph and the phonograph.
jrm4 4y ago
Ah, I can step in here. Fair use might work but maybe not? If I were to argue against it, I'd probably compare something like a recording of music vs. a MIDI file. Same raw data scaling.

DrSiemer 4y ago

That's not how it works though. Instead of applying arbitrary content detail reduction, the model is an attempt to distill the core of what makes a particular artist (or phrase, face, object etc) unique. When programming, it will often take a long time and a lot of code to get to a few final lines that do what you want. You cannot say the final result is a "thumbnail" of all previous efforts. Rather, it is the apotheosis of it. Some artists spend decades developing a style that looks like a kid could do it as well. Still, there is something unique in there, that a trained eye will recognize. Converting that particular style to a formula and making that freely available is at least somewhat morally ambiguous.

holoduke 4y ago
It's the same as someone trying to mimic a style. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly not something you could get copyrights from.
- DrSiemer 4y ago
  It is not the same as trying to mimic a style. It is cloning the essence of a style and making it readily available to anyone who asks for it. Sure, it's not copyright infringement, but you could argue that this takes away from the hardship the original artist had to go through to perfect their style.
  - namarie 4y ago
    > Sure, it's not copyright infringement Which was precisely what the discussion was about. > But you could argue that this takes away from the hardship the original artist had to go through to perfect their style You could argue the same things about photoshop, a lot of other digital tools, drum machines, the photograph and the phonograph.

jrm4 4y ago

Ah, I can step in here. Fair use might work but maybe not? If I were to argue against it, I'd probably compare something like a recording of music vs. a MIDI file. Same raw data scaling.