3 ms·
No, no, I agree about the insane lawsuits for similar sounding music. The popular music is mostly regurgitated stuff anyways. But the equivalent here would be "
by okamiueru 4y ago
No, no, I agree about the insane lawsuits for similar sounding music. The popular music is mostly regurgitated stuff anyways. But the equivalent here would be "Penny Lane as if composed by Michael Jackson and sung by Taylor Swift". My example is bad, because I stopped following popular music a decade or two ago. But replace the deceased artists with living ones.
My point probably should be made clearer. You know how you can say "in the art style of X"? Well, it doesn't matter if Huggingface made that possible. You can, relatively easily, train that concept with a collection of paintings by X. Then you can go ahead an make art in their style.
Now, from a technology point of view, that is nothing short of amazing. I still cannot get my head around how absolutely ridiculously powerful it is. And, even the people who play with this, don't seem to fully grasp it either. The world will change in the next 4 years.
What I'm wondering, is, what should we, as a society, find acceptable? Why should someone be able to train "in the style of X" where X is a set of EVERYTHING, and make money of it, without the say of X, or even them getting anything for it? Have you checked the evaluation of Huggingface? It's in the order of 1-10 billion USD.
There is definitely the argument of anti-copyright. I get that part too. But there is definitely someone who will end up with the bigger stick, and it isn't the people holding the paint brushes who made it possible. That seems just a little bit unfair, and perhaps unwise.
Also, I'll end with a point that no one so far has brought up, even though I've followed the discussion both for and against AI. Which is "whitewashing" art. Now, the example I'm going to show isn't very good, but I also spent 5 minutes on this. Where would you draw the line on when Alexander Wild no longer has copyright over his photography?
https://imgur.com/a/cm6IrzG https://imgur.com/a/cm6IrzG
- BeFlatXIII 4y agoThank you for articulating the split between the users of AI models and the owners of the models. I like using the models in the manner of Marcel Duchamp’s readymades and from that perspective, all the arguments about artists’ moral rights are nothing more than regulatory mumbo-jumbo and sour grapes. However, I do strongly agree that there is something morally icky about companies such as “Open”AI and HuggingFace making bank off the training data they’ve scraped. That’s why I prefer Stable Diffusion and its clones, as it lets us run it locally without someone making money in a pay-per-prompt (or, worse, monthly subscription) model. Democratize AI to anyone with a strong enough computer or don’t do it at all.
- okamiueru 4y agoI should mention that Stability.AI, Hugging Face and Stable Diffusion are tightly connected. It's all a bit muddy, and I didn't help by mixing them up. However, what I think is that Stability.AI is the company, "Hugging Face" is the community based website for sharing models and the likes, and "Stable Diffusion" is the implementation of the diffusion model developed in a university in Munich. It's not really fair to take it all out on Stability.AI, as at the very least, they are sharing the technology and models with everyone (for the time being). And that open up some incredible possibilities. It's much worse what DALL-E, Midjourney and others do, which is much the same, while they let people play with it, but it's all theirs, and they can take it away at any moment.
- freejazz 4y agoIf you want to do a cover of someone's song, but in a different genre, you still need to license it. It's called a mechanical license.