3 ms·

I'd still much rather see real art. It's kind of the difference between eating a homemade meal and eating manufactured crap out of a vending machine. And, from

I'd still much rather see real art. It's kind of the difference between eating a homemade meal and eating manufactured crap out of a vending machine. And, from what I can tell, the art generators are basically just stealing other people's stuff. It'll probably be brought up as a real IP issue at some point.

dale_glass 4y ago
No, that's just not how they technically work. AI generators train on an image archive, but the resulting model doesn't include the actual pictures in it, and often contains only a tiny influence from each source image. I think the current popular model works out to somewhere around a byte in the model per sample image. Here's a diagram https://www.reddit.com/user/AnOnlineHandle https://www.reddit.com/user/AnOnlineHandle made: https://i.redd.it/yxflzg0z6p3a1.png https://i.redd.it/yxflzg0z6p3a1.png
- lmarcos 4y ago
  Well, if I were an artist who wants to make work publicly available (previews?) and charge for it, I would make sure the license I use to publish my work explicitly states that it's not allowed to use my work as part of training data for any ML algorithm. If they want my work for that, then pay for it. Hell, I think I as a developer could do that... Gonna invent a new open source license.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    Okay, but what's that supposed to achieve? If you think you'll get paid, you probably won't because AI trains on very large datasets, and so pretty much any price per image would quickly get too expensive. If you think it'll hamstring AI, I doubt it'll be for long. People will just end up curating their dataset better, and images that allow for it will continue to be created. Also, per https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd -- "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", so this likely won't get much uptake in open source circles either.
    - dwild 4y ago
      >Okay, but what's that supposed to achieve? Not being in the dataset maybe? There's many artists that hate that you can just write "in the style of" with their name. So at least, if it does appear that it works with their name, they now either have been paid that amount, or they can sue for that amount of lost revenue. At least not everything would be lost. I'm not a lawyer though, so really no idea whether this could even be possible as it's seems like currently it's fair use.
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        > Not being in the dataset maybe? There's many artists that hate that you can just write "in the style of" with their name. Very few artists have an unique style. Some are very recognizable, yes, but plenty others do more or less the same sort of thing. There's thousands of photographers out there that go for the "razor sharp, high contrast closeup that shows every pore" style (https://photoaspects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/black-and-white-1590771_1280-1024x683.jpg https://photoaspects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/black-an...) for instance. With very limited exceptions you could go to a photographer and say "I want a photo that looks like this Vogue cover" and get it done. > So at least, if it does appear that it works with their name, they now either have been paid that amount, or they can sue for that amount of lost revenue. At least not everything would be lost. Don't be silly. If that logic worked, Microsoft could have sued Linus Torvalds for providing an OS for free. Or if you want to be a bit more exact, Sun Microsystems, IBM, or any other Unix vendor.
- d0liver 4y ago
  Encoding and compression also have the property that they vastly change the data _representation_ of information (often changing it completely). Yet, the underlying thing reamins the same in a way that's easily recognizable by a human. This is similar - sure, a transform is being applied that changes the representation of the data. But, ultimately, it's just mashing together large chunks of other people's IP.

dale_glass 4y ago

No, that's just not how they technically work. AI generators train on an image archive, but the resulting model doesn't include the actual pictures in it, and often contains only a tiny influence from each source image. I think the current popular model works out to somewhere around a byte in the model per sample image. Here's a diagram https://www.reddit.com/user/AnOnlineHandle https://www.reddit.com/user/AnOnlineHandle made: https://i.redd.it/yxflzg0z6p3a1.png https://i.redd.it/yxflzg0z6p3a1.png

lmarcos 4y ago
Well, if I were an artist who wants to make work publicly available (previews?) and charge for it, I would make sure the license I use to publish my work explicitly states that it's not allowed to use my work as part of training data for any ML algorithm. If they want my work for that, then pay for it. Hell, I think I as a developer could do that... Gonna invent a new open source license.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  Okay, but what's that supposed to achieve? If you think you'll get paid, you probably won't because AI trains on very large datasets, and so pretty much any price per image would quickly get too expensive. If you think it'll hamstring AI, I doubt it'll be for long. People will just end up curating their dataset better, and images that allow for it will continue to be created. Also, per https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd -- "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", so this likely won't get much uptake in open source circles either.
  - dwild 4y ago
    >Okay, but what's that supposed to achieve? Not being in the dataset maybe? There's many artists that hate that you can just write "in the style of" with their name. So at least, if it does appear that it works with their name, they now either have been paid that amount, or they can sue for that amount of lost revenue. At least not everything would be lost. I'm not a lawyer though, so really no idea whether this could even be possible as it's seems like currently it's fair use.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > Not being in the dataset maybe? There's many artists that hate that you can just write "in the style of" with their name. Very few artists have an unique style. Some are very recognizable, yes, but plenty others do more or less the same sort of thing. There's thousands of photographers out there that go for the "razor sharp, high contrast closeup that shows every pore" style (https://photoaspects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/black-and-white-1590771_1280-1024x683.jpg https://photoaspects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/black-an...) for instance. With very limited exceptions you could go to a photographer and say "I want a photo that looks like this Vogue cover" and get it done. > So at least, if it does appear that it works with their name, they now either have been paid that amount, or they can sue for that amount of lost revenue. At least not everything would be lost. Don't be silly. If that logic worked, Microsoft could have sued Linus Torvalds for providing an OS for free. Or if you want to be a bit more exact, Sun Microsystems, IBM, or any other Unix vendor.
d0liver 4y ago
Encoding and compression also have the property that they vastly change the data _representation_ of information (often changing it completely). Yet, the underlying thing reamins the same in a way that's easily recognizable by a human. This is similar - sure, a transform is being applied that changes the representation of the data. But, ultimately, it's just mashing together large chunks of other people's IP.