4 ms·

The outcome you want will inevitably lead to entrenched intellectual property holders having an effective monopoly on the best AI tools. You know that Stable D

The outcome you want will inevitably lead to entrenched intellectual property holders having an effective monopoly on the best AI tools. You know that Stable Diffusion lawsuit? Go check who the lawyers behind that work for; Disney wants that same outcome.

jeroenhd 4y ago
People who made or bought out the content get to have the content. I don't necessarily see the problem with that except for the ridiculous amount of time copyright remains valid. If a company invests $250 million into an original movie, I don't see why they shouldn't have some say over their content for at least a couple of years. Not until 2150 or whatever the end date for modern works is supposed to be, but give it some time at least. OpenAI is the result of billions being thrown around. When it comes to billions, it doesn't matter if they come from Disney, Google, Microsoft or Amazon. None of these companies have our individual rights at heart, they only care about profits. In this rare occasion, the interests of the people and Disney align. The laws protecting the independent writers/programmers/artists are the same ones that protect Disney. The tools themselves work on arbitrary data sets. Anyone who can dig up enough public domain/attribution free pictures/code/text can train their own AI without even coming close to copyright issues. Hell, had these super smart AI people managed to find out a method of attribution, the data set would include massive amounts of works released under Creative Commons or open source licenses.
- loa_in_ 4y ago
  OpenAI is the result of slow and steady progress in ML. It's not even a good product. It is astonishing in itself though.
- scheeseman486 4y ago
  I don't see any of these companies caring about artists, but something like Stable Diffusion is more of a weird accident. Like how IBM managed to create a platform with that became an open standard, something almost diametrically opposed to their own corporate values. Good quality data and more of it means better output. Disney is almost certainly doing their own thing internally, benefiting from their ability to use both free as well as their own IP and the capital to hire cheap workers to train it directly. It's not that I don't understand why artists might be upset about a company scraping copyrighted art, I just think that the longer term effects of legally kneecapping open source variants while handing over the most powerful versions of it to the existing intellectual property giants are A Bad Thing.

jeroenhd 4y ago

People who made or bought out the content get to have the content. I don't necessarily see the problem with that except for the ridiculous amount of time copyright remains valid. If a company invests $250 million into an original movie, I don't see why they shouldn't have some say over their content for at least a couple of years. Not until 2150 or whatever the end date for modern works is supposed to be, but give it some time at least. OpenAI is the result of billions being thrown around. When it comes to billions, it doesn't matter if they come from Disney, Google, Microsoft or Amazon. None of these companies have our individual rights at heart, they only care about profits. In this rare occasion, the interests of the people and Disney align. The laws protecting the independent writers/programmers/artists are the same ones that protect Disney. The tools themselves work on arbitrary data sets. Anyone who can dig up enough public domain/attribution free pictures/code/text can train their own AI without even coming close to copyright issues. Hell, had these super smart AI people managed to find out a method of attribution, the data set would include massive amounts of works released under Creative Commons or open source licenses.

loa_in_ 4y ago
OpenAI is the result of slow and steady progress in ML. It's not even a good product. It is astonishing in itself though.
scheeseman486 4y ago
I don't see any of these companies caring about artists, but something like Stable Diffusion is more of a weird accident. Like how IBM managed to create a platform with that became an open standard, something almost diametrically opposed to their own corporate values. Good quality data and more of it means better output. Disney is almost certainly doing their own thing internally, benefiting from their ability to use both free as well as their own IP and the capital to hire cheap workers to train it directly. It's not that I don't understand why artists might be upset about a company scraping copyrighted art, I just think that the longer term effects of legally kneecapping open source variants while handing over the most powerful versions of it to the existing intellectual property giants are A Bad Thing.