3 ms·
Always strange to me that programmers complain about copilot “stealing” code but are fine with it “stealing” art. Can’t have it both ways.
by motoxpro 4y ago
Always strange to me that programmers complain about copilot “stealing” code but are fine with it “stealing” art. Can’t have it both ways.
- drudolph914 4y agothat’s not true … maybe in your circles. but many people (that are also programmers) are outraged that artists’ work are being used as training data without consent
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- iterative 4y ago[dead]
- exegete 4y agoI don’t think the article mentioned art one way or the other. But, the very first sentence seems like it could apply to art as well, where GitHub Copilot could be replaced with any of the generative AI models out there used for art. > GitHub Copilot intentionally severs the relationship between creator and creation. This purposefully, yet painstaking act is accomplished by 1) stripping the humanity that’s uniquely part of the creator to make the creation and then 2) monetizing the creation immediately.
- jtode 4y agoIt's not really a question of what it's used for, but what it's used with. Training on all the Old Masters and all public domain art? No problem. Training on people's work posted on the internet to which they retain copyright? Not fine. Training on Microsoft's own huge codebase for their tool, and calling for voluntary authorizations from the public? Fine. Hoovering it up with not so much as a by your leave, effectively creating a license filter that sells the output as copyrightable? Well you know. (edited for tone, I get pissed about this...)