4 ms·

I see what you’re doing but the parallel doesn’t really work. This isn’t an equal struggle between AI builders and artists. What happened is that AI builders t

I see what you’re doing but the parallel doesn’t really work. This isn’t an equal struggle between AI builders and artists. What happened is that AI builders took artists’ images, baked them in GPUs for a few months, and are now selling the output. Again, regardless of your opinion of the IP question, you have to admit that generative AI leverages artists’ own work against their economic interests. If someone’s livelihood is affected by this, of course they will feel venom. That is not parallel to your feeling of venom toward their efforts to stop this from happening to them.

sebzim4500 4y ago
This would be an extremely strong argument if those artists had learned to draw themselves without looking at a single pre-existing piece of art.
- MattRix 4y ago
  There is a fundamental difference between a human taking time to learn a thing and a machine that gobbles up everything it can find in order to replicate it.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    Good luck getting these people to even acknowledge that, though. Even though they'll acknowledge it in literally every other circumstance of ML.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    Of course there are loads of differences between how humans learn and how AI models learn, from substrate to architecture. I don't see why any of those differences should make a difference to the morality or legality of learning from copyrighted material.
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
I know the most about stable diffusion. Stable diffusion (based) models are typically open source, you can download them for free, and they easily fit on a cheap USB stick. They're not actually supposed to have anyone else's pictures in them as such [1]. As far as I can tell, the training is more along the lines of "this is what a dog looks like", "this is what a cat looks like", "this is what a stick looks like" ... etc. At this point in time, unaltered output is automatically public domain, because it is not made by a human. [1] some early bugs notwithstanding.

sebzim4500 4y ago

This would be an extremely strong argument if those artists had learned to draw themselves without looking at a single pre-existing piece of art.

MattRix 4y ago
There is a fundamental difference between a human taking time to learn a thing and a machine that gobbles up everything it can find in order to replicate it.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  Good luck getting these people to even acknowledge that, though. Even though they'll acknowledge it in literally every other circumstance of ML.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Of course there are loads of differences between how humans learn and how AI models learn, from substrate to architecture. I don't see why any of those differences should make a difference to the morality or legality of learning from copyrighted material.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

I know the most about stable diffusion. Stable diffusion (based) models are typically open source, you can download them for free, and they easily fit on a cheap USB stick. They're not actually supposed to have anyone else's pictures in them as such [1]. As far as I can tell, the training is more along the lines of "this is what a dog looks like", "this is what a cat looks like", "this is what a stick looks like" ... etc. At this point in time, unaltered output is automatically public domain, because it is not made by a human. [1] some early bugs notwithstanding.