5 ms·

As always with this type of headline, the answer is No

• giuliomagnifico 4y ago
  The article says “maybe yes” for what I understood. At least a guy is making a lawsuit, we’ll see: > The alleged wrongdoing comes down to what Butterick summarized to me as “the three ‘C’s”: The artists had not consented to have their copyrighted artwork included in the laion database; they were not compensated for their involvement, even as companies including Midjourney charged for the use of their tools; and their influence was not credited when A.I. images were produced using their work
  • XorNot 4y ago
    Trying to pretend LAION has any culpability is how you know this is bunk. It's a list of links to publically available content. The metadata is the alt-text of the linked images. No one has the ability to demand they not be linked to, because otherwise the simple solution is "stop hosting" or "add authentication" and the ramifications of any other conclusion break the internet (EU right-to-forget would apply, but that compels action after a request, it doesn't imply linking is illegal).
    • giuliomagnifico 4y ago
      It’s like the story of an autonomous car that kill a guy, who is the culpable? Who write the software or the car? Same for this scraping algorithms, somebody has written them. I don’t have a solution, it’s only a consideration.
• visarga 4y ago
  "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." (wiki)
  • taneq 4y ago
    Betteridge’s law of headlines.
• Dalewyn 4y ago
  This is actually an exception: Yes. Why? This is no different than software in general using third-party assets without permission. We, as in both society and the legal world, know how to deal with license violators and IP thieves. The only question is whether we can stop confounding the discussion from spamming "AI" every-fucking-where every-fucking-time.