4 ms·
In my opinion, I think it was kind of inevitable. Once OpenAI proved that AI could create genuinely meaningful outputs and then other companies started doing it
by stmblast 4y ago
In my opinion, I think it was kind of inevitable. Once OpenAI proved that AI could create genuinely meaningful outputs and then other companies started doing it for profit, and of course taking into account the costs of trying to run the thing itself, it was only a matter of time.
- attemptone 4y agoI don't follow, other companies can do whatever they want. OpenAI didn't present itself as for-profit and closed-source, so they shouldn't have cared what profit incentive others had. In a way I wish for another AI winter. Then wouldn't have to mourn the loss of aesthetics and morality
- zirgs 4y agoStable Diffusion is free and open source and can be run locally. I see no reason why we can't have free and open source ChatGPT too.
- raincole 4y agoHow does Stability.ai make money? If their business plan is just "burning VC's money" for now, you can bet they'll be as close as OpenAI soon.
- ImprobableTruth 4y agoThey offer an open base model and then offer fine tuning to companies e.g. apparently they're creating finetuned models for movie companies.
- raincole 4y agoThat does sound better. Kinda like a consultant firm I guess? We'll see how it unfold in the following years.
- mananaysiempre 4y agoStable Diffusion is accessible at no charge, but is neither free (libre) software nor open source, as their “don’t use for bad things” clauses run afoul of “freedom 0” aka “no discrimination against fields of endeavour” fundamental to both notions.
- zirgs 4y agoThey have no way to enforce that "no bad things" clause. In practice they provide a product with no restrictions. Unlike other AI image generators - there's no keyword filter - you can input whatever you want in there.
- mananaysiempre 4y agoIs that a “copyright law is unsalvageable, screw it, do crimes” that I’m hearing? I am not ... unsympathetic to that viewpoint. Until I come across any evidence at all that the SD license was written with it in mind, though, I can only believe that they meant what they wrote (or others did at their behest), and that they really did want to prohibit uses they don’t like on pain of civil and criminal prosecution. That’s a stance the current legal realities permit, but I cannot with a straight face associate it with FOSS.