5 ms·

> Anyway, just my personal opinion. It's become a very 'us vs them', lines-in-the-sand argument these days, and it'd be great if the conversation could be less

> Anyway, just my personal opinion. It's become a very 'us vs them', lines-in-the-sand argument these days, and it'd be great if the conversation could be less heated and more philosophical. It's heated and less philosophical because many artists are worried about their livelihood while a multi-billion dollar company is working towards making them obsolete often using their own work. I don't understand the confusion people have towards this issue.

lbotos 4y ago
> many artists are worried about their livelihood while a multi-billion dollar company is working towards making them obsolete often using their own work. You do realize that most commercial art is "art for hire" and in this very story some of the examples trained were not owned by the artist. Multi-billion dollar companies already do this. Hire artist to draw Corporate IP. Corp owns and can do whatever they want with it. Maybe they hire that artist again. Maybe they hire someone else and they share the work in a reference folder.
- allturtles 4y ago
  But now they (maybe) get to skip the "hire arist" step. Which, from the point-of-view of the artists, is the most important part.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  The distinction I think is that the multi-billion dollar company working towards making artists obsolete by using their own work didn't pay any of these artists for that IP. At least with hiring an artist to draw corporate IP, an artist has to relinquish their rights to that work explicitly and are paid for those rights.
fragmede 4y ago
Are we talking about Stable Diffusion or GitHub Copilot here?
- soraki_soladead 4y ago
  I’m not convinced there’s a difference.
AllegedAlec 4y ago
> It's heated and less philosophical because many artists are worried about their livelihood while a multi-billion dollar company is working towards making them obsolete often using their own work. IN that case, odds are we should be outraged about the existence of 99% of people here, because they work for tech companies whose sole goal is to create software that tries to make human employees redundant.

lbotos 4y ago

> many artists are worried about their livelihood while a multi-billion dollar company is working towards making them obsolete often using their own work. You do realize that most commercial art is "art for hire" and in this very story some of the examples trained were not owned by the artist. Multi-billion dollar companies already do this. Hire artist to draw Corporate IP. Corp owns and can do whatever they want with it. Maybe they hire that artist again. Maybe they hire someone else and they share the work in a reference folder.

allturtles 4y ago
But now they (maybe) get to skip the "hire arist" step. Which, from the point-of-view of the artists, is the most important part.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
The distinction I think is that the multi-billion dollar company working towards making artists obsolete by using their own work didn't pay any of these artists for that IP. At least with hiring an artist to draw corporate IP, an artist has to relinquish their rights to that work explicitly and are paid for those rights.

fragmede 4y ago

Are we talking about Stable Diffusion or GitHub Copilot here?

soraki_soladead 4y ago
I’m not convinced there’s a difference.

AllegedAlec 4y ago

> It's heated and less philosophical because many artists are worried about their livelihood while a multi-billion dollar company is working towards making them obsolete often using their own work. IN that case, odds are we should be outraged about the existence of 99% of people here, because they work for tech companies whose sole goal is to create software that tries to make human employees redundant.