4 ms·
Adobe is planning for a post-regulation, post-biggest-lawsuit world for sure. All their steps show that they'll base their offering on their own commercial data
by code51 3y ago
Adobe is planning for a post-regulation, post-biggest-lawsuit world for sure. All their steps show that they'll base their offering on their own commercial data - paying training license fees to stock images and artists.
Whether the amounts they pay would make licensing your work sensible or not, Adobe is surely assuming this will ultimately end up as Napster-to-Spotify transition.
If we end up "happily" (means legally as well) running these on customer level hardware, then the question won't be about credits of computation. It'll be about credits to use licensed work.
- sebmellen 3y agoThis is the most plausible reason from what I see.
- GaggiX 3y ago> It'll be about credits to use licensed work. If this is true (which I kinda doubt), is it going to matter to most people? Like you can't really tell the images used to train a model from the images it generates (if it's trained correctly), so I doubt the majority of people would care, like those who already use MJ for example. Training models on copyrighted data for academic research will be allowed, the models will be published, and good luck enforcing the licence; and here I'm talking about the worst case scenario where a court would find an image generated by AI to be derivative of another image in a pool of billions in a dataset (this goes way beyond any definition of derivative work for now).
- gmerc 3y agoYa, enforcement would have to go along with a war on general purpose computing and privacy. Oh wait, …
- whiddershins 3y agoThat’s a big bet. My instinct is it doesn’t go that way. We will see.