17 ms·
Have they removed copyrighted "training" material or are they still relying on people's hard work which they "learned from" without consent and are selling with
by gumballindie 3y ago
Have they removed copyrighted "training" material or are they still relying on people's hard work which they "learned from" without consent and are selling without permission?
- simonw 3y agoOpenAI license image data from Shutterstock, so it's possible that this is trained entirely on licensed images. https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-expands-partnership-openai-signs-new-six-year https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release... More transparency about the training data, as always, would be greatly appreciated.
- rusk 3y ago> without permission or attribution even
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- raytopia 3y agoThey haven't. Probably one reason Adobe's AI will beat them out long term. Also another thing that's been on my mind is I wonder if all this AI generation stuff could cause a Games Industry style crash where due to such a over saturation of highly advertised but meaningless/worthless AI content consumers lose interest and stop spending money in different respective industries (books, ganes, films, digital art, music, etc.) and then they crash.
- gumballindie 3y agoI am not aware of a games industry crash, it would appear that gaming is an industry larger than all other forms of art combined. But indeed niches that are saturated by enshitified content have almost crashed and I get your point. I suppose the average will turn even more average and indeed people will stop spending money on it. AI being a statistical machine it will excell at making whatever is common and plenty and as such those industries will suffer even more. Average music, content writing, drawings, etc, will drop to near zero value, that's guranteed.
- Tijdreiziger 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
- alec_irl 3y agoThe comment you're replying to is referring to the video game industry crash in North America in the early 1980s. Basically the market was flooded with games of poor quality due to a lot of factors, including Atari's complete lack of quality control on games they put on their 2600 console. Nintendo ended up redesigning their Famicom console as the Nintendo Entertainment System with an emphasis on it looking like a VCR as opposed to a cheap game console like NA audiences were used to (the Famicom itself is fairly small and plasticky with permanently attached controllers). Additionally they were strict about licensing development on the system with the goal of fostering a crop of family friendly, high quality games. It was a couple years after the fact (iirc) but Nintendo's efforts to differentiate themselves in the wake of the crash obviously payed off and led to a long period of Japanese ascendancy in the games markets. So the crash cleared out a lot of the market and led to a huge opportunity for Nintendo.
- jncfhnb 3y agoIdk. I think this an overcomplexification. To a large extent, the NES was an instant success because Super Mario Bros was simply an amazing game.
- tavavex 3y agoNo, this has been directly confirmed by Nintendo developers at various points. For people to even be able to try SMB, they'd have to be convinced that the NES wouldn't suffer the fate of the Atari 2600 and the like. It wasn't just about the VCR-looking design - the marketing materials had very careful wording to avoid associations with the failed game consoles, and accessories like R.O.B. (that never even existed in Japan!) were mostly made to make the NES look like a complex electronic toy, and not a game console.
- minimaxir 3y agoIf there's an AI crash it will be due to the vast number of AI companies with insufficiently differentiated products and subsequent race to the bottom, not due to the ubiquity of the output.
- gwerbret 3y agoFrom the end of this announcement (emphasis mine): "DALL·E 3 is designed to decline requests that ask for an image in the style of a living artist. Creators can now also opt their images out from training of our future image generation models." Very carefully-worded statement. So...still relying on people's hard work, but on the upside, you get to opt out of having your work be fodder for DALL·E4." </s>
- shmatt 3y agoSo * using living artists work to train models = good * generating living artists work using said models = bad Good ethical consistency from the OpenAI crew
- gumballindie 3y agoWell OpenAI is consitent in that it consistently tries to monetise other people's work without paying for it and in doing so it leverages the gullibility of the masses to defend their actions. Clever.
- tsukikage 3y agoAn artist using an artbook as reference material = good An artist tracing an image in an artbook and selling it = bad Seems consistent to me
- CptFribble 3y agoI think it's worth reframing this analogy: An artist using an artbook as reference material = good An artist with one billion arms, using every artbook ever published, creating millions of images per second in every possible style for fractions of a penny per image, outcompeting every other artist forever = bad
- space_fountain 3y agoI think I'm sympathetic to that idea, but the ethical consideration there isn't that it violates copyright. It's that it's disruptive to society/the economy. Or maybe one could argue that because it's owned?
- 4bpp 3y agoHave human artists done so?
- gumballindie 3y agoBut a machine is not a human, so your analogy is moot.
- flir 3y agoBut a human is a machine.
- gumballindie 3y agoYeah if we overdose in lsd often the two are indeed equally capable in memorising data and mixing it together.
- flir 3y agoI've honestly got no idea what that means. Can you elaborate?
- staticman2 3y agoAre you trying to start a conversation that will revolve looking up dictionary definitions?
- flir 3y agoHmm. I don't think so. Whether humans are machines or not is really a matter of faith, not dictionary definitions, I would think. It was a pithy one-liner about categories in response to a pithy one-liner about categories. But I'd say the underlying question I'm trying to ask is philosophical: what property do humans have and machines lack that makes the first's learning from copyrighted works acceptable, and the second's unacceptable? (eastof suggested a property below).
- eastof 3y ago
- judge2020 3y agoLegally this is likely a non-issue. It depends on if they successfully make the case that their AI learns like a human, and thus any outputs that aren't direct copies of existing art are new creations. This even applies if the AI copies an artists art style (in the same vein as a human looking at one artists art over a weekend and then being commissioned to paint something in the same style, which is completely legal since you can't copyright an art style; although Adobe would love that[0]). 0: https://twitter.com/UltraTerm/status/1679294173793628161 https://twitter.com/UltraTerm/status/1679294173793628161
- MattRix 3y agoThis kind of argument is always absurd to me because it doesn’t matter if it learns like a human or not, it’s still not a human. (I would also argue that it learns and generates images in ways that are non-human, just based on speed and scale alone)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 3y agoCorporations are people too... in a particular legal perspective.
- krapp 3y agoCorporations are not literally people in a legal sense. Corporations have some of the same rights as people in certain legal transactions because treating them as entities rather than each individual within a corporation separately is more convenient, and because to do otherwise would in some cases infringe upon the rights of the individual humans who make up the corporation (for example, corporations have a right to free speech because the individuals within that corporation have a right to free speech, and it would be impossible to deny free speech to corporations without also denying it to individuals.) But systems of law are still capable of recognizing the distinction between the personhood of corporations and of people, just as they can recognize the difference between humans and AI even if AIs can be demonstrated to "learn" the way humans do. As always, context and nuance matter. Laws aren't written or decided upon based on pure logic or calculus but on what human beings want and consider to be in their self-interest.
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoThat ship sailed long, long ago with ImageNet, I'm afraid. All that theft is part of "the economy" now, which means it ain't comin' back. Best we can hope for is a legal decision that says, "AI doesn't make shit. It's all public".
- gumballindie 3y agoFunny how people complained about chinese factories stealing IP and wanting protection, but now they defend OpenAI and others, and even rejoice at the idea that this will "free society". Not clear to what it will be free to do since many that were left without jobs due to said factories have switched to white collar work, which is now to be stolen by ... the people that complained about china stealing their IP. It's hilarious to watch this mass histeria kickstarted by one single corporation. People are literarily like cattle - you can steer them any direction you wish if you know how.
- BizarreByte 3y ago> but now they defend OpenAI and others, and even rejoice at the idea that this will "free society" A tale as old as time, "it's different when we do it".
- KHRZ 3y agoFunny how there's so many well paid IP lawyers around, and they focused so hard lobbying to extend the copyright to 100+ years for simple copying, but they never had the imagination and creativity that copyright is supposed to be all about protecting, to extend copyright beyond that.
- Filligree 3y agoFrankly, I'm quite tired of having artists steal each others' ideas without payment. To say nothing of children.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoTruly, I have always hated how human artists have "trained" by looking at other people's art without permission, downloaded those without permission into their meat-brains, and trained their organic neural networks on this art. You can't do that. It's copyright-maximalist copyright infringement.
- datagram 3y agoThe fundamental differences in scale between manual recreation by a human and automated replication by a machine are what led to the creation of copyright law in the first place.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoNo, that isn't what led to the creation of copyright in the first place. The concept predates Gutenberg's printing press. Copyright in the United States was drafted into the Constitution as a way of rewarding creators so they could create more. They're already being rewarded, perhaps too handsomely, there is no need to extend it further. If they persist in trying to take more than they're given, then the public will just need to revoke the privilege. It's not a human right.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe concept only barely predates the press, with the first actual copyright laws being in the 1700s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoProto-copyright goes back centuries before that. I think around 600AD, King Dermott said "to every cow its calf, and to every book its copy". Then it really picks up in the Middle Ages. It's in your own fucking link for godsakes.