4 ms·

The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more abou

The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright. And yes, that's scary, but unavoidable as tech progresses. I don't think anything good could come from trying to strickten copyright here. The AI is obviously not copying directly, at best it takes a bit of inspiration from other works, something artists themselves do plenty themselves. Something like UBI might help with the monetary needs eventually. Though the fear part might start getting really interesting in the near future. What do you do with your life when AI is better at it than you? When everything you can create, can be created by the AI faster and better?

mrtksn 4y ago
> This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept. People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.
- chii 4y ago
  > People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution as has many other industries that faced automation and become obsolete. The fact that it is AI derived doesn't make it different than Luddites before.
adriand 4y ago
Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves. If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasonable to me. The request isn’t to eliminate the technology. It’s that artists should be able to consent to their work being used. Works derived from their work should include credit. And, they should be compensated.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Who do I credit when I use SD inpainting to remove power lines from the background of a personal vacation photo?
  - blkhawk 4y ago
    Everybody who ever made a photograph that shows blue sky and posted it online - easy.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  The request is to eliminate the technology. The training data set for stable diffusion has 5 billion images. Even if it was a single dollar per image, the data set as a whole would cost $5 billion. Getting consent of all the authors within that 5 billion images, managing the infrastructure of paying them, would be a Herculean task, and the cost of that task would far outrun the 5 billion spend if you gave a dollar for each image. That would kill any and all possibility of an open source AI model. The future where this happens would be a very dystopian one.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    This. I see and understand the FUD on behalf of the artists. It's real; this is going to change things in a way that makes their lives harder, and that sucks. What I see in the discussion is a results first, truth second thing. This is understandable - in an existential fight, damn the consequences - I'm swinging for my own survival. What's missing from that analysis though, is that by constricting open source models, you're not by any measure stopping the development or deployment of these models. Google will make one. Microsoft will make one. Apple will make one. Adobe will make one. Then, in order to use these technologies, you will have to pay. A lot - and it won't be paying the artists. Sure, the initial training night send out a few cents for each work included, a small price for Google to pay to prevent competition. But you're smoking the wrong shit if you think for a second that won't change as soon as the lead is cemented. So now you're still looking for another job, and you don't even get to play with this new tech and continue making art, because you don't work for Google.
zerocrates 4y ago
People and companies have complained an enormous amount about Google's usage of images, particularly their inclusion in Google's site, and legal action or the threat thereof has caused Google to change how Google Images works before.

mrtksn 4y ago

> This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept. People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.

chii 4y ago
> People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution as has many other industries that faced automation and become obsolete. The fact that it is AI derived doesn't make it different than Luddites before.

adriand 4y ago

Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves. If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasonable to me. The request isn’t to eliminate the technology. It’s that artists should be able to consent to their work being used. Works derived from their work should include credit. And, they should be compensated.

williamcotton 4y ago
Who do I credit when I use SD inpainting to remove power lines from the background of a personal vacation photo?
- blkhawk 4y ago
  Everybody who ever made a photograph that shows blue sky and posted it online - easy.
bioemerl 4y ago
The request is to eliminate the technology. The training data set for stable diffusion has 5 billion images. Even if it was a single dollar per image, the data set as a whole would cost $5 billion. Getting consent of all the authors within that 5 billion images, managing the infrastructure of paying them, would be a Herculean task, and the cost of that task would far outrun the 5 billion spend if you gave a dollar for each image. That would kill any and all possibility of an open source AI model. The future where this happens would be a very dystopian one.
- pksebben 4y ago
  This. I see and understand the FUD on behalf of the artists. It's real; this is going to change things in a way that makes their lives harder, and that sucks. What I see in the discussion is a results first, truth second thing. This is understandable - in an existential fight, damn the consequences - I'm swinging for my own survival. What's missing from that analysis though, is that by constricting open source models, you're not by any measure stopping the development or deployment of these models. Google will make one. Microsoft will make one. Apple will make one. Adobe will make one. Then, in order to use these technologies, you will have to pay. A lot - and it won't be paying the artists. Sure, the initial training night send out a few cents for each work included, a small price for Google to pay to prevent competition. But you're smoking the wrong shit if you think for a second that won't change as soon as the lead is cemented. So now you're still looking for another job, and you don't even get to play with this new tech and continue making art, because you don't work for Google.

zerocrates 4y ago

People and companies have complained an enormous amount about Google's usage of images, particularly their inclusion in Google's site, and legal action or the threat thereof has caused Google to change how Google Images works before.