3 ms·
The people who wrote the Photoshop source code were paid for their contributions with full consent that their work would be included in the product and sold for
by legutierr 4y ago
The people who wrote the Photoshop source code were paid for their contributions with full consent that their work would be included in the product and sold for a profit by Adobe.
The artists whose work was fed into these systems did not consent, nor were they paid for their contribution. In fact, I have seen a few reports of people using these systems to generate lookalike artworks intended to resemble the work of specific working artists—artists whose livelihoods depend on client commissions. The only way that these systems could produce knock-off artwork after receiving a prompt containing that artist's specific name is if the artist's own copyrighted work was used in the training data.
Do you have any doubt that many working artists' copyrighted work was included in the the training data that produced these systems, without those artists licensing their work for that purpose?
It's not gatekeeping to insist that a project obtain a voluntary license from the people who contribute their work to a project.
And it's not gatekeeping to point out the fact that these platforms have only been successful by using working artists' copyrighted work in violation of their rights, without asking permission or providing compensation.
- scrollaway 4y agoBe real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of photoshop, they're not trying to disprove a point about paying salaries to the devs, and I am sure you knew that.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago> Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".
- makoto12 4y agobeautifully put
- newswasboring 4y agoThis kind of wording reminds me of a very old (probably outdated) argument about theft of digital goods. In meatspace when you steal something you are depriving someone of a thing. If I steal your biscuit, you don't have the biscuit. But if I copy a picture of the biscuit you are still left with your own picture, perfect and identical in every way. If I'm not reselling that image to everyone, you lost on that one sale. I wonder if openAI goes and pays retail price for each image they used, would this discussion finally end?
- legutierr 4y agoNo, your perspective on this is all wrong. The outrage about AI art is not about how it empowers its users. Rather, the problem is that these systems only exists today because of the involuntary contributions of the very same people who are likely to be put out of business. It really is about the how the contributors to these systems are being treated. The coders that contributed to Photoshop are analogous to the artists whose work was used to train these models. The difference between them is that the former gave their consent to the contribution, and the latter did not.
- scrollaway 4y agoSo, my perspective on this is all wrong, despite the fact that the original poster wrote, pretty damn specifically, "Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts." That's it, that's the entire post. Never mind the "stolen artwork" argument, you still have people upset about "automating creativity". So, like I said, it's one part of it.
- legutierr 4y agoMy mistake. Your perspective is not all wrong. You're just focusing on the wrong thing.
- oytis 4y agoThis is a legit complaint, but is realistic to overcome in future I think. There have been reports of OpenAI hiring software engineers to train AI models to write code in their language. Can be done with art as well, just will take time. It's an impressive demonstration of what is achievable though.
- newswasboring 4y agoWe are talking past each other. I am not talking about, and indeed am not interested in, the compensation discussion. I will let other people battle it out. I was just responding to calling automation of art gross. I don't know who you are talking to.