3 ms·
> but what the customers of AI people want isn't available under those terms. What the customers of AI want is accurate predictions of the models, and they can
by usrbinbash 4y ago
> but what the customers of AI people want isn't available under those terms.
What the customers of AI want is accurate predictions of the models, and they can get that even if everyone demanding to get removed from the training set would be removed.
The makers of generative AI could remove every living artist who wants to from the dataset, the model would still develop a general solution of color theory, composition, almost every artstyle in existence, ... because fact of the matter is, there is just that much data out there. Our species collectively has spend DECADES recording, storing and categorizing everything and the proverbial kitchen sink. There are god-knows-how-many petabytes of data available in images alone, so even if just 1% of that could be used to train generative models, it would still be more than adequate.
And soon after that, there is an explosion of new generated art, filtered through the aesthetic sense of millions of humans, that can just be fed back into the models, to make them better.
The end result is the same: High-quality image generation on a scale hitherto unseen, running even on consumer grade hardware. And what lawsuits will be filed then?
- wokwokwok 4y agoThen do it! I swear when I see this argument because it makes me angry. You’re right, but they didnt, because they were too lazy and cheap to do it that way. …and that’s why people are angry, and rightly so. Fully licensed models are the future, and it’s both irritating and disappointing that we are where we are right now because the people training these models were too lazy to assemble a training dataset that wasn’t problematic (ie. full of porn and copyrighted material). You can argue the “but at the end of the day it’s all the same…” argument if you like, but clearly from the lawsuits it isn’t ok They’ve completely messed it up. There’s a reason the openai api terms of service says that “the Content may be used to improve and train models”; they’re setting themselves up to have a concrete defence for the source training data for their models. Good job. Stability can burn in a fire. They’ve really trashed the reputation of generative AI in a way that is going to be very difficult to recover from.
- usrbinbash 4y ago> but clearly from the lawsuits it isn’t ok Well, a lawsuit isn't a decision, we will have to wait for the courts to decide wheter it's legally okay or not.
- wokwokwok 4y agoUltimately it doesn’t matter. Reputation damage has been done. Undoing that is going to take time and effort which, could be spent on more productive things. I’m disappointed in where we are right now. It was entirely avoidable. Lazy. Cheap. /me shakes head…
- wnkrshm 4y agoThis is the only issue I have with generative image models. I'd be using them myself right now but I'm too disgusted by how the sausage is made. Once the first licensed, properly sourced models are out, they will get my money or time.
- FranzFerdiNaN 4y agoNo one outside some artists is going to give a fuck about the legality. Joe Schmuck out there is too busy either not knowing this exists or making funny pictures of Han Solo eating a banana on a toilet made from the skin of Yoda. That reputation damage you think matters doesn’t exist.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]