5 ms·

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to f

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to further the arts and sciences; it’s in the US constitution. The point isn’t to control your work — it’s to live in a richer society. And it’s not even clear that training a model counts as infringement. Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than reproducing the entire book. Artists won’t acknowledge that the same applies to their art. If you believe that training models on art is stealing, then I’m a master ninja, since I’m the creator of books3. And even Stephen King today came out and said that he’s fine with it: > Would I forbid the teaching (if that is the word) of my stories to computers? Not even if I could. I might as well be King Canute, forbidding the tide to come in. Or a Luddite trying to stop industrial progress by hammering a steam loom to pieces. https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-king-books-ai-writing/675088/ https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-ki... If he’s not worried, why are you? I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all. You call me a grifter, but I’ve made roughly a hundred bucks from books3, and that’s because someone found my patron buried under a pile of links and subscribed to it many months ago. Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal.

xigoi 3y ago
If OpenAI believes that copyright is wrong, why are they keeping their software proprietary?
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  I agree with you, for what it’s worth. I don’t think it would be a disadvantage for them to open source GPT-4. They’re the ones with the hardware.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Ostensibly because of the risk of misuse. This may be a losing battle even assuming it's 100% sincere (I'm not interested in debating the assumption).
thomasahle 3y ago
> Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than reproducing the entire book. Language models can often reproduce an entire book. And image models like midjourney can reproduce lots of copyrighted art more or less flawlessly: https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/some-light-infringement/ https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/some-light-infringeme...
- andrewfurey2003 3y ago
  That doesnt make training the models wrong, just using those specific outputs wrong.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  It's possible with Google Docs too. The whackiest thing the other day was that I was using the screenshot tool in MacOS and it made a screenshot of copyrighted content. I was flabbergasted. The tool just did it with 4 parameters.
  - callalex 3y ago
    And if you use those reproductions commercially it is almost universally illegal already.
discreteevent 3y ago
>If he’s not worried, why are you? Because he already got paid enough to keep him going during the forthcoming drought caused by AI absorbing all the water.
shinycode 3y ago
So let’s say in 10 years they have the processing power to generate full movies on demand. OpenAI trains its model on all movies from IMDB. Then I ask ChatGPT to produce a movie « like » avengers but with the faces of all my friends. And I just pay the 20$ fee (or 200$ by then) to OpenAI and watch my movie. Then I can ask to tweak some parts of the story and update the movie in real time. And this for any movie. Given the budget of 220 millions for the one movie I quoted, OpenAI will never give back anything money to them. Or to any movie producer. Does that seems ok to you ? Today it’s the books and pictures but later it’s going to be anything. I mean to produce anything it requires time, effort, money. They steal the end result, and produce any variation possible and make money out of it. Your point would only be valid if OpenAI would be 100% free. It’s not
- allo37 3y ago
  And then obviously no-one will spend $220 million on a movie anymore because, hey, we can just use generative AI. So I guess subsequent AIs will be based on the outputs of a previous AI? Or will all movies from a certain point onwards be wholly based on a corpus of existing movies used for training? Maybe AI companies will start shooting small film segments in meatspace just for the purpose of training or providing some base input to their models? The future is gonna be weird, yo.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Isn't that what they are already doing but with human writers? Screenwriting is mostly just a formula. Aside from being cheaper, I don't see any difference in terms of quality.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Does that seems ok to you ? Today it’s the books and pictures but later it’s going to be anything. When they're that good, I might finally finish the novel I started writing in… ugh, 2016. A quote comes to mind, though: "I say 'your' civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about."
HWR_14 3y ago
> I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all Criminality and perusing science not only aren't exclusive, they aren't even related. Would you try that same argument if you were stealing physical goods for your experiments? We have tons of example of unethical and illegal things being done in the name of science. IRBs didn't come into existence because being a scientist wanting to further science automatically makes you moral or justified. I trust I don't need to list the various experiments. Meanwhile, to return to what King said. That something doesn't worry someone worth more than half a billion dollars with a 5 decade career at the top of their game and iconic name recognition is not an indication that the thing is irrelevant, especially to people in the same line of work. You can say you don't like copyright, but that's not what you are focusing on.
sixstringtheory 3y ago
> how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures Ideas and artwork are qualitatively different. Artwork, it’s right there in the name. It takes work to create pictures/art. It’s more serious than stealing just ideas, which I agree are economically worthless until executed.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Fun fact: the etymology goes to "ars", as does "artisan" and "artificial". Similar in German: Künstler, Kunst, Künstliche Intelligenz are all rooted in a single word that means skill/ability/knowledge/recognition. I suspect that those in 1855 who said "photography can never assume a higher [artistic] ranking than engraving" were basically right: me snapping a photo of a sunset, especially now on a device that adjusts exposure etc. automatically, doesn't feel like it should deserve the same protection as a carefully composed portrait with artfully chosen wardrobe and makeup.
  - sixstringtheory 3y ago
    The etymology, while interesting, is trivial hair-splitting in the context of the real issue. I’d be interested to see any court case that has been argued successfully on such grounds. As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork, I take them about as seriously as I do their opinions on germ theory, space exploration, racial politics, warfare, psychology, biology, nuclear physics, and many other subjects we have learned more about in the intervening 168 years.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Artwork, it’s right there in the name :P > As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork Sure, but it's their opinion of photography, not AI; and implicitly my opinion of AI, not theirs.
      - sixstringtheory 3y ago
        OK, your point is well received about the etymological argument, but my real point, right after "artwork", is that yes, even photographs do require work to create. Would you say that Ansel Adams' photographs were effortless to produce? I wouldn't.
helloplanets 3y ago
One tangentially related trial would be Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music [0], where Marvin Gaye's family sued Pharrell Williams with the following claim: > Gaye's family argued that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of "Blurred Lines" are rooted in "Got to Give It Up"; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers." And they won. I don't agree with the outcome, but I do think it's an interesting benchmark. Obviously, this trial would've never been a thing if "Blurred Lines" wasn't a big hit. Something simlar could apply to a major brand using text-to-image generated material that was strikingly similar to a prominent photographer or artist, if they sued. I wonder what's going to be the first big case having to deal with this. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? You toss this out as though "Intellectual Property" is this concept you don't understand as (probably) a software developer of some sort, and beyond that, an entire divison of law, to which most companies have entire floors if not entire buildings of lawyers to deal with. > We’re talking about pictures. I'm talking about all art in all media. There is generative music, you know. And yes the big ones for now are the text, which has been trained on millions of blog posts, reddit posts, written works creative and otherwise, all, and I will keep saying it, without the permission of the authors by and large and similarly things like MidJourney which in turn were trained on massive imagesets with different specializations, but whose sources included: photographers, illustrators, painters, furries, and likely millions of people drawing in the anime style, *also without their permission.* > If you believe that training models on art is stealing, then I’m a master ninja, since I’m the creator of books3. And even Stephen King today came out and said that he’s fine with it I mean, you tell me. You created a thing you stand to profit from (even if indirectly via name recognition) via the use of IP you didn't have the rights to and got permission from ONE affected individual, after the fact. If you want to be ethically in the clear, why not get permission from everyone else? Then you're done. I suspect because a) it will be a substantial amount of work and b) that you know very well most people are not going to be comfortable with their creative output being used to train a machine who aren't already rich, which means a much, much smaller dataset to use. And if it makes you feel better you can frame as all as zealotous luddites who want to smash your machine, but again, for the record, I do find this interesting. The only part I take issue with is rent-seekers trying to monetize access to them to monied entities, and what said monied entities are going to do with them: which is largely generate spam to sell at whatever price they can manage. > If he’s not worried, why are you? I'm not a creative, I'm not worried for me. I just don't like what's about to happen to creatives. I don't like technology being wielded by people who don't have skin in the game, who don't respect the creative process. I frankly find it incredibly offputting how ready and frankly gleeful everyone in my field is to put millions of people to pasture with no plan for how they're to make a living, especially given how hard it is to do so as an artist already. I just cannot conceive of someone who's like "we should automate creative processes so humans have more time for spreadsheets and time cards" and just... UGH. What in god's name sort of world are we even trying to build anymore!? > I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all. I'm sure Oppenheimer did too. > You call me a grifter, To be clear, I called users of your model grifters, not you personally. > but I’ve made roughly a hundred bucks from books3, and that’s because someone found my patron buried under a pile of links and subscribed to it many months ago. Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal. That doesn't change the fact that what you guys are building will be used to inflict catastrophic societal harm by people who are not looking to "do the work" as you'd put it. They're looking to maximize profits because it's their contractual obligation. If they can make one designer do the work of a hundred by feeding them a drip of AI generated garbage to tweak to something usable, they will in a heartbeat *AND YOU KNOW THAT.*
ethbr1 3y ago
It is immoral to create a device, from the labors of someone, which is capable of replacing their labor, without compensating them. Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free. Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists. Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky about what they train on. Theft at scale does not somehow make it not theft. Stealing 1/100th of a penny 10 billion times is still stealing. And when you repackage the results of that theft in a profit generating machine, and then label it not theft because "it's a whole new thing," you start to sound like a CDO apologist. And look, I get it -- it's about money. It's always about money. You may not be making any off your work, but that's immaterial because lots of huge companies are making obscene amounts of money from doing this (or expect to be in the future). At the same time, it is an excellent tool. Art without human time! It will eliminate a lot of artist jobs, but everyone as a whole will be better off (because we're swapping human labor for electricity). However, the currently vogue "artists don't deserve anything" smacks more of "we don't want to share profits during the transition period" than a cohesive moral argument. We can have an AI future, but we should be honest about what enabled that. And we should compensate those people during the transition. Hell, AI tax. Paid to everyone who created a work in a scraped dataset. Sunset in 30 years. Done.
- CodeSgt 3y ago
  I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years. We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period. Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them into their own original work. Yet, no one is arguing that Van Gogh’s descendants should be paid a small royalty anytime a variation of on of his painting is produced, or even just when a painting in the style of one of his is produced. Were all visual artwork to disappear from the world and collective human memory today, then the first new pieces produced by artists would look dramatically different - and likely much worse - than they do today. What AI is doing is no different. Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same.
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
>> We want to further science. Can you point to some scientific result(s) that you have produced?
asu_thomas 3y ago
> Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal. You sure give the profit motive a lot of due for someone who claims to be above it. Hard work and perseverance is a human instinct that is undermined by antisocial institutions like copyright, which has no precedent absent the barbaric mode of relations we call capitalism.
wwweston 3y ago
> First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. We're talking about the fruit of someone else's skilled labor and the long labor that went into developing the skills. If you're so certain that's not valuable, well, then it shouldn't be any hardship to forgo that entirely and simply figure out some other way to get trained models. If it is valuable, then maybe it's worth treating it as if it is, both in terms of compensation and determination. Not only for moral accounting but also because of economic feedback: if it's not treated like it's valuable, then it will become less frequent that people can invest time and other resources into doing it.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
[dupe]

xigoi 3y ago

If OpenAI believes that copyright is wrong, why are they keeping their software proprietary?

sillysaurusx 3y ago
I agree with you, for what it’s worth. I don’t think it would be a disadvantage for them to open source GPT-4. They’re the ones with the hardware.
ben_w 3y ago
Ostensibly because of the risk of misuse. This may be a losing battle even assuming it's 100% sincere (I'm not interested in debating the assumption).

thomasahle 3y ago

> Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than reproducing the entire book. Language models can often reproduce an entire book. And image models like midjourney can reproduce lots of copyrighted art more or less flawlessly: https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/some-light-infringement/ https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/some-light-infringeme...

andrewfurey2003 3y ago
That doesnt make training the models wrong, just using those specific outputs wrong.
renewiltord 3y ago
It's possible with Google Docs too. The whackiest thing the other day was that I was using the screenshot tool in MacOS and it made a screenshot of copyrighted content. I was flabbergasted. The tool just did it with 4 parameters.
- callalex 3y ago
  And if you use those reproductions commercially it is almost universally illegal already.

discreteevent 3y ago

>If he’s not worried, why are you? Because he already got paid enough to keep him going during the forthcoming drought caused by AI absorbing all the water.

shinycode 3y ago

So let’s say in 10 years they have the processing power to generate full movies on demand. OpenAI trains its model on all movies from IMDB. Then I ask ChatGPT to produce a movie « like » avengers but with the faces of all my friends. And I just pay the 20$ fee (or 200$ by then) to OpenAI and watch my movie. Then I can ask to tweak some parts of the story and update the movie in real time. And this for any movie. Given the budget of 220 millions for the one movie I quoted, OpenAI will never give back anything money to them. Or to any movie producer. Does that seems ok to you ? Today it’s the books and pictures but later it’s going to be anything. I mean to produce anything it requires time, effort, money. They steal the end result, and produce any variation possible and make money out of it. Your point would only be valid if OpenAI would be 100% free. It’s not

allo37 3y ago
And then obviously no-one will spend $220 million on a movie anymore because, hey, we can just use generative AI. So I guess subsequent AIs will be based on the outputs of a previous AI? Or will all movies from a certain point onwards be wholly based on a corpus of existing movies used for training? Maybe AI companies will start shooting small film segments in meatspace just for the purpose of training or providing some base input to their models? The future is gonna be weird, yo.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Isn't that what they are already doing but with human writers? Screenwriting is mostly just a formula. Aside from being cheaper, I don't see any difference in terms of quality.
ben_w 3y ago
> Does that seems ok to you ? Today it’s the books and pictures but later it’s going to be anything. When they're that good, I might finally finish the novel I started writing in… ugh, 2016. A quote comes to mind, though: "I say 'your' civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about."

HWR_14 3y ago

> I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all Criminality and perusing science not only aren't exclusive, they aren't even related. Would you try that same argument if you were stealing physical goods for your experiments? We have tons of example of unethical and illegal things being done in the name of science. IRBs didn't come into existence because being a scientist wanting to further science automatically makes you moral or justified. I trust I don't need to list the various experiments. Meanwhile, to return to what King said. That something doesn't worry someone worth more than half a billion dollars with a 5 decade career at the top of their game and iconic name recognition is not an indication that the thing is irrelevant, especially to people in the same line of work. You can say you don't like copyright, but that's not what you are focusing on.

sixstringtheory 3y ago

> how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures Ideas and artwork are qualitatively different. Artwork, it’s right there in the name. It takes work to create pictures/art. It’s more serious than stealing just ideas, which I agree are economically worthless until executed.

ben_w 3y ago
Fun fact: the etymology goes to "ars", as does "artisan" and "artificial". Similar in German: Künstler, Kunst, Künstliche Intelligenz are all rooted in a single word that means skill/ability/knowledge/recognition. I suspect that those in 1855 who said "photography can never assume a higher [artistic] ranking than engraving" were basically right: me snapping a photo of a sunset, especially now on a device that adjusts exposure etc. automatically, doesn't feel like it should deserve the same protection as a carefully composed portrait with artfully chosen wardrobe and makeup.
- sixstringtheory 3y ago
  The etymology, while interesting, is trivial hair-splitting in the context of the real issue. I’d be interested to see any court case that has been argued successfully on such grounds. As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork, I take them about as seriously as I do their opinions on germ theory, space exploration, racial politics, warfare, psychology, biology, nuclear physics, and many other subjects we have learned more about in the intervening 168 years.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Artwork, it’s right there in the name :P > As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork Sure, but it's their opinion of photography, not AI; and implicitly my opinion of AI, not theirs.
    - sixstringtheory 3y ago
      OK, your point is well received about the etymological argument, but my real point, right after "artwork", is that yes, even photographs do require work to create. Would you say that Ansel Adams' photographs were effortless to produce? I wouldn't.

helloplanets 3y ago

One tangentially related trial would be Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music [0], where Marvin Gaye's family sued Pharrell Williams with the following claim: > Gaye's family argued that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of "Blurred Lines" are rooted in "Got to Give It Up"; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers." And they won. I don't agree with the outcome, but I do think it's an interesting benchmark. Obviously, this trial would've never been a thing if "Blurred Lines" wasn't a big hit. Something simlar could apply to a major brand using text-to-image generated material that was strikingly similar to a prominent photographer or artist, if they sued. I wonder what's going to be the first big case having to deal with this. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? You toss this out as though "Intellectual Property" is this concept you don't understand as (probably) a software developer of some sort, and beyond that, an entire divison of law, to which most companies have entire floors if not entire buildings of lawyers to deal with. > We’re talking about pictures. I'm talking about all art in all media. There is generative music, you know. And yes the big ones for now are the text, which has been trained on millions of blog posts, reddit posts, written works creative and otherwise, all, and I will keep saying it, without the permission of the authors by and large and similarly things like MidJourney which in turn were trained on massive imagesets with different specializations, but whose sources included: photographers, illustrators, painters, furries, and likely millions of people drawing in the anime style, *also without their permission.* > If you believe that training models on art is stealing, then I’m a master ninja, since I’m the creator of books3. And even Stephen King today came out and said that he’s fine with it I mean, you tell me. You created a thing you stand to profit from (even if indirectly via name recognition) via the use of IP you didn't have the rights to and got permission from ONE affected individual, after the fact. If you want to be ethically in the clear, why not get permission from everyone else? Then you're done. I suspect because a) it will be a substantial amount of work and b) that you know very well most people are not going to be comfortable with their creative output being used to train a machine who aren't already rich, which means a much, much smaller dataset to use. And if it makes you feel better you can frame as all as zealotous luddites who want to smash your machine, but again, for the record, I do find this interesting. The only part I take issue with is rent-seekers trying to monetize access to them to monied entities, and what said monied entities are going to do with them: which is largely generate spam to sell at whatever price they can manage. > If he’s not worried, why are you? I'm not a creative, I'm not worried for me. I just don't like what's about to happen to creatives. I don't like technology being wielded by people who don't have skin in the game, who don't respect the creative process. I frankly find it incredibly offputting how ready and frankly gleeful everyone in my field is to put millions of people to pasture with no plan for how they're to make a living, especially given how hard it is to do so as an artist already. I just cannot conceive of someone who's like "we should automate creative processes so humans have more time for spreadsheets and time cards" and just... UGH. What in god's name sort of world are we even trying to build anymore!? > I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all. I'm sure Oppenheimer did too. > You call me a grifter, To be clear, I called users of your model grifters, not you personally. > but I’ve made roughly a hundred bucks from books3, and that’s because someone found my patron buried under a pile of links and subscribed to it many months ago. Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal. That doesn't change the fact that what you guys are building will be used to inflict catastrophic societal harm by people who are not looking to "do the work" as you'd put it. They're looking to maximize profits because it's their contractual obligation. If they can make one designer do the work of a hundred by feeding them a drip of AI generated garbage to tweak to something usable, they will in a heartbeat *AND YOU KNOW THAT.*

ethbr1 3y ago

It is immoral to create a device, from the labors of someone, which is capable of replacing their labor, without compensating them. Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free. Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists. Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky about what they train on. Theft at scale does not somehow make it not theft. Stealing 1/100th of a penny 10 billion times is still stealing. And when you repackage the results of that theft in a profit generating machine, and then label it not theft because "it's a whole new thing," you start to sound like a CDO apologist. And look, I get it -- it's about money. It's always about money. You may not be making any off your work, but that's immaterial because lots of huge companies are making obscene amounts of money from doing this (or expect to be in the future). At the same time, it is an excellent tool. Art without human time! It will eliminate a lot of artist jobs, but everyone as a whole will be better off (because we're swapping human labor for electricity). However, the currently vogue "artists don't deserve anything" smacks more of "we don't want to share profits during the transition period" than a cohesive moral argument. We can have an AI future, but we should be honest about what enabled that. And we should compensate those people during the transition. Hell, AI tax. Paid to everyone who created a work in a scraped dataset. Sunset in 30 years. Done.

CodeSgt 3y ago
I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years. We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period. Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them into their own original work. Yet, no one is arguing that Van Gogh’s descendants should be paid a small royalty anytime a variation of on of his painting is produced, or even just when a painting in the style of one of his is produced. Were all visual artwork to disappear from the world and collective human memory today, then the first new pieces produced by artists would look dramatically different - and likely much worse - than they do today. What AI is doing is no different. Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

>> We want to further science. Can you point to some scientific result(s) that you have produced?

asu_thomas 3y ago

> Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal. You sure give the profit motive a lot of due for someone who claims to be above it. Hard work and perseverance is a human instinct that is undermined by antisocial institutions like copyright, which has no precedent absent the barbaric mode of relations we call capitalism.

wwweston 3y ago

> First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. We're talking about the fruit of someone else's skilled labor and the long labor that went into developing the skills. If you're so certain that's not valuable, well, then it shouldn't be any hardship to forgo that entirely and simply figure out some other way to get trained models. If it is valuable, then maybe it's worth treating it as if it is, both in terms of compensation and determination. Not only for moral accounting but also because of economic feedback: if it's not treated like it's valuable, then it will become less frequent that people can invest time and other resources into doing it.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

[dupe]