4 ms·

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 b

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.
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    It’s insane how much of a gift to artists Stable Diffusion is, this tech could have been wrapped up in extremely expensive subscriptions by any of the current creative tool rent barons but it was handed to us all for free. Many are too angry and small minded to see how lucky we are. A tool beyond anything Adobe currently ships today, for free. Could have easily been a AutoCad level subscription (10k+ a year IIRC that would have left you behind if you hadn’t paid.
    - pksebben 4y ago
      I think that some of the friction here is about mindset. I have a lot of friends who are artists, and many of them consider this stuff 'tech shit I'll never understand'; I think, because we've culturally set ourselves up in a strata of 'professionals' (who are assumed to be better / smarter / uniquely capable) and non-professionals (who are born without whatever it takes to grok x). This is along many lines - my artist friends in question both believe they understand something about the creative process that the art-uninitiated will never get, and that 'tech shit' is leagues beyond what they'll ever get, because they did bad in math. But here's the thing; I have never 'done art' as a part of my identity, and yet I can listen to them talk about it and understand where they're coming from enough to contribute. Also, I work in tech and I didn't even make it through basic trig. I have a GED and a set of scattered community college credits that are never going anywhere because of a GPA < 2. The whole idea that there are 'this type of person' and 'that type of person' and that those are immutable is a horrific and dangerous lie. But some people have bought it.
      - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
        Future of creativity and artistry isn't just being expert in one thing anyway, already seeing in a lot of fields where top level creatives are managing to excel in several fields. These sort of tools are only going to accelerate this trend in my eyes.

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.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  It’s insane how much of a gift to artists Stable Diffusion is, this tech could have been wrapped up in extremely expensive subscriptions by any of the current creative tool rent barons but it was handed to us all for free. Many are too angry and small minded to see how lucky we are. A tool beyond anything Adobe currently ships today, for free. Could have easily been a AutoCad level subscription (10k+ a year IIRC that would have left you behind if you hadn’t paid.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    I think that some of the friction here is about mindset. I have a lot of friends who are artists, and many of them consider this stuff 'tech shit I'll never understand'; I think, because we've culturally set ourselves up in a strata of 'professionals' (who are assumed to be better / smarter / uniquely capable) and non-professionals (who are born without whatever it takes to grok x). This is along many lines - my artist friends in question both believe they understand something about the creative process that the art-uninitiated will never get, and that 'tech shit' is leagues beyond what they'll ever get, because they did bad in math. But here's the thing; I have never 'done art' as a part of my identity, and yet I can listen to them talk about it and understand where they're coming from enough to contribute. Also, I work in tech and I didn't even make it through basic trig. I have a GED and a set of scattered community college credits that are never going anywhere because of a GPA < 2. The whole idea that there are 'this type of person' and 'that type of person' and that those are immutable is a horrific and dangerous lie. But some people have bought it.
    - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
      Future of creativity and artistry isn't just being expert in one thing anyway, already seeing in a lot of fields where top level creatives are managing to excel in several fields. These sort of tools are only going to accelerate this trend in my eyes.