4 ms·

Person enters "Ann Graham Lotz", image of Ann Graham Lotz appears. Why does this upset people and google image search doesn't

JustFinishedBSG 4y ago
Because people like to pretend here and on other tech sites that somehow generative models cannot and do not memorize things and therefore those pesky things like copyrights and attribution should not apply to them. Compression is prediction.
raincole 4y ago
Because google image search "cites" the source. It's a big difference. Of course google image search can show a wrong source, but it's still a big difference between "absolutely nothing" and "potentially wrong thing".
- hiidrew 4y ago
  probably absolutely madness but would be cool if these generative tools could cite the training images based on prompts, and maybe artists could be verified and receive a micropayment for when their image is used as an input for an image
  - raincole 4y ago
    "these" generative tools can't do that. The transformer-based ML algorithm just can't do that. Of course maybe in the future we'll have a better method, but it will be a very different thing from what we have today.
  - eropple 4y ago
    That seems generally antithetical to the goals of the folks making these, which is "don't pay a human for what a computer can do instead".
    - bethecloud 4y ago
      This is how you unlock productivity and drive human flourishing.
      - eropple 4y ago
        The thing is that folks who want this to be a thing would really prefer that folks like me go along with them in conflating productivity with industrial productization. I find that to be a distasteful kind of hide-the-ball. And yanno, maybe it's just me, but attempting to railroad humans out of the visual arts via economies of scale has no bearing on "human flourishing". From where I stand, it's a cheap-suit excuse to bleed us of culture and art.
        ForestCritter 4y ago
        Agreed, and I would add the problem that without human artists taking the time and effort and skill to create art, these 'AI' would have nothing to feed off of. By destroying any living an artist could make by reproducing shoppinglist amalgamations for cheap, we are disintegrating the last small platforms for living artists . We're disrespecting the dedication and skill it takes to create art by pretending that a computer can create art as humans do.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
        Not really. There’s a difference between not “don’t pay the human responsible for making this work despite their objections” and “don’t pay a human because we don’t need them.” The former case is how these models came about.
        bethecloud 4y ago
        If you don't want people seeing your art and learning from it, then why would you post it on the internet in the first place?
        6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago

JustFinishedBSG 4y ago

Because people like to pretend here and on other tech sites that somehow generative models cannot and do not memorize things and therefore those pesky things like copyrights and attribution should not apply to them. Compression is prediction.

raincole 4y ago

Because google image search "cites" the source. It's a big difference. Of course google image search can show a wrong source, but it's still a big difference between "absolutely nothing" and "potentially wrong thing".

hiidrew 4y ago
probably absolutely madness but would be cool if these generative tools could cite the training images based on prompts, and maybe artists could be verified and receive a micropayment for when their image is used as an input for an image
- raincole 4y ago
  "these" generative tools can't do that. The transformer-based ML algorithm just can't do that. Of course maybe in the future we'll have a better method, but it will be a very different thing from what we have today.
- eropple 4y ago
  That seems generally antithetical to the goals of the folks making these, which is "don't pay a human for what a computer can do instead".
  - bethecloud 4y ago
    This is how you unlock productivity and drive human flourishing.
    - eropple 4y ago
      The thing is that folks who want this to be a thing would really prefer that folks like me go along with them in conflating productivity with industrial productization. I find that to be a distasteful kind of hide-the-ball. And yanno, maybe it's just me, but attempting to railroad humans out of the visual arts via economies of scale has no bearing on "human flourishing". From where I stand, it's a cheap-suit excuse to bleed us of culture and art.
      - ForestCritter 4y ago
        Agreed, and I would add the problem that without human artists taking the time and effort and skill to create art, these 'AI' would have nothing to feed off of. By destroying any living an artist could make by reproducing shoppinglist amalgamations for cheap, we are disintegrating the last small platforms for living artists . We're disrespecting the dedication and skill it takes to create art by pretending that a computer can create art as humans do.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
      Not really. There’s a difference between not “don’t pay the human responsible for making this work despite their objections” and “don’t pay a human because we don’t need them.” The former case is how these models came about.
      - bethecloud 4y ago
        If you don't want people seeing your art and learning from it, then why would you post it on the internet in the first place?
        6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago