4 ms·
The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero. It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI ar
by bioemerl 4y ago
The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero.
It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples.
Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful.
What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actually going to make these companies that much money either. The tools are open source. Competition is going to reduce profit on these systems to a very slim margin.
You have to not only compensate for the fact that they aren't involved in actually creating the AI, so they're only getting a fraction of what this thing is worth in the first place. Then you have to consider that there are five billion images in the training set.
The compensation is going to be nothing.
- mrtksn 4y agoI agree, the situation is not ideal. These machines should't been trained on their work in first place. Currently compensating the artists would be like the Pirate Bay compensating the studios for their production costs through the gambling ads they run. No new move would have been ever made if that was the case.
- bioemerl 4y agoIsn't this machine never being invented a net loss for society? I want my computer to be able to summon images out of the ether if I ask it for a picture of anything I could imagine. I could not imagine a positive system that would value such a small group of individuals over the need of the whole in a situation like this.
- pertymcpert 4y agoThe tech is out there. This whole discussion is a waste of energy, it will never, ever be undone. Focus on what's next, not what you've lost.