5 ms·

> DALL·E 3 is designed to decline requests that ask for an image in the style of a living artist. There can be only one! This seems weird to me, but I admit I

by ctoth 3y ago

> DALL·E 3 is designed to decline requests that ask for an image in the style of a living artist. There can be only one! This seems weird to me, but I admit I'm about as far from an artistic person as it is possible to be. I understand why it was done (people kept asking for pictures in the style of that one dude and they were better and he hated it) but it still just seems strange.

nwoli 3y ago
Also weird since chatgpt is more than willing to do it
gumballindie 3y ago
They want to make it less obvious that they've stolen people's content. That's what these procedural images are based on. Loads and loads of content taken from people for free.
- ctoth 3y ago
  > Loads and loads of content taken from people for free. The content that the people themselves posted to the Internet? I'm pretty sure that OpenAI didn't break into any artist's studios and steal anything.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    If I wear my wallet out in the open does that mean it's ok for you to steal it? Or if I expose my painting in a museum is it ok to copy and resell it? People that used to steal software used to claim that they just made a copy, they didn't steal a car. Yet somehow corporations prevented them from making said copies. Now we see people are taking the side of corporations stealing people's content. The content that they themselves don't want to be stolen. Weird world, and the markets are clearly irrational. This IP theft will backfire and it will be glorious.
    - runj__ 3y ago
      If your art style can be put into a bunch of parameters (which it can) it can be copied by a human. Copyright of style is stupid and muddy, it's always a matter of people thinking "the magical humanity" not being possible to put into ones and zeroes.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        Correct, but there are clear rules to how humans can copy things. Also humans don't usually need to ingest and store billions of parameters about anything to learn about it nor could they. If they could they'd be software.
  - falcor84 3y ago
    It's nice of you to say that, but I know what I did.
  - jplusequalt 3y ago
    But OpenAI and Midjourney did train on their artwork without consent, and as a result artists are at risk of losing income from these models.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Copyright extends well after death, though.
  - jamilton 3y ago
    Yeah, I think it's more that they're trying to reduce how much they anger/upset artists than anything with copyright specifically.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  How is that stealing? Do art students steal when they tour the museum? Please, I really need to know... what sort of dingbat philosophy is it that thinks that this even slightly resembles stealing, in either of the "copyright infringement is stealing" or the "actual theft" meanings. I hope the DSM VI includes copyright maximalism in its list of mental illnesses.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    That's a projection. Also OpenAI didn't walk into museums to "learn". It downloaded billions of images that it then ingested tokenised and then mixed to produce results. It's not a human "touring a museum". This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans, or that it posseses some sort of intelligence.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      I don't speak whatever incoherent, irrational language you're using. None of what you've said is relevant. The same or similar processes the brain uses are at work here. > This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans, The people who run the software have the same "equal rights" as humans. If you're allowed to download one of those images and look at it, they're allowed to download it and train their software with it. You're trying to invent new intellectual property rights out of thin air. No thanks, we already have more than enough of that lunacy.
  - jplusequalt 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ChrisClark 3y ago
      >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Sure looks like it's your posting privileges that are in danger, not his.

by ctoth 3y ago

nwoli 3y ago

Also weird since chatgpt is more than willing to do it

gumballindie 3y ago

They want to make it less obvious that they've stolen people's content. That's what these procedural images are based on. Loads and loads of content taken from people for free.

ctoth 3y ago
> Loads and loads of content taken from people for free. The content that the people themselves posted to the Internet? I'm pretty sure that OpenAI didn't break into any artist's studios and steal anything.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  If I wear my wallet out in the open does that mean it's ok for you to steal it? Or if I expose my painting in a museum is it ok to copy and resell it? People that used to steal software used to claim that they just made a copy, they didn't steal a car. Yet somehow corporations prevented them from making said copies. Now we see people are taking the side of corporations stealing people's content. The content that they themselves don't want to be stolen. Weird world, and the markets are clearly irrational. This IP theft will backfire and it will be glorious.
  - runj__ 3y ago
    If your art style can be put into a bunch of parameters (which it can) it can be copied by a human. Copyright of style is stupid and muddy, it's always a matter of people thinking "the magical humanity" not being possible to put into ones and zeroes.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      Correct, but there are clear rules to how humans can copy things. Also humans don't usually need to ingest and store billions of parameters about anything to learn about it nor could they. If they could they'd be software.
- falcor84 3y ago
  It's nice of you to say that, but I know what I did.
- jplusequalt 3y ago
  But OpenAI and Midjourney did train on their artwork without consent, and as a result artists are at risk of losing income from these models.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Copyright extends well after death, though.
- jamilton 3y ago
  Yeah, I think it's more that they're trying to reduce how much they anger/upset artists than anything with copyright specifically.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
How is that stealing? Do art students steal when they tour the museum? Please, I really need to know... what sort of dingbat philosophy is it that thinks that this even slightly resembles stealing, in either of the "copyright infringement is stealing" or the "actual theft" meanings. I hope the DSM VI includes copyright maximalism in its list of mental illnesses.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  That's a projection. Also OpenAI didn't walk into museums to "learn". It downloaded billions of images that it then ingested tokenised and then mixed to produce results. It's not a human "touring a museum". This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans, or that it posseses some sort of intelligence.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    I don't speak whatever incoherent, irrational language you're using. None of what you've said is relevant. The same or similar processes the brain uses are at work here. > This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans, The people who run the software have the same "equal rights" as humans. If you're allowed to download one of those images and look at it, they're allowed to download it and train their software with it. You're trying to invent new intellectual property rights out of thin air. No thanks, we already have more than enough of that lunacy.
- jplusequalt 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ChrisClark 3y ago
    >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Sure looks like it's your posting privileges that are in danger, not his.