5 ms·
> 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
by V__ 3y ago
> 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.
So this version was again trained (without permission) on copyrighted work. And they try to shift the burden onto artists to manually opt out.
Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image?
- Horffupolde 3y agoIt’s a price they are willing to pay.
- jdminhbg 3y ago> So this version was again trained (without permission) on copyrighted work. So am I!
- smallerfish 3y agoHow do we access your brain's API for fractions of a cent? I've got $100 ready to go!
- jdminhbg 3y ago$100 grants you continuous access to my higher-level functions for about half an hour. Inquire within!
- CamperBob2 3y agoThe usual way. Send me a check every couple of weeks, and a 1099 at the end of the tax year.
- amelius 3y agoExcept you were actually trained, while the AI applied some form of computation that we (perhaps opportunistically) call "training" but it isn't really the same thing. You can't win in court just by naming things the same.
- jdkee 3y agoWhat is the qualitative difference between the two?
- klabb3 3y agoYes but you were allowed because you are a human (I assume). Human rights are not transferable to even animals, much less machines. You also have the right to have your eyes open in a public dressing room, but you’re not allowed to turn on your camera and film. You’re also allowed to have fireworks but not recreational C4s. And so on.
- thurn 3y agoCompletely true, but copyright is not a "right" in the sense of human rights, it's a legal construct that we created to create certain social benefits. And it certainly wasn't my impression that most HN users view the current state of copyright law as an unmitigated positive force in the world.
- mortureb 3y agoAll artists are trained on copyrighted work.
- callalex 3y agoAnd they pay a license fee to do so. Artist textbooks are not free, because they pay the rights holders to reproduce their work.
- mortureb 3y agoBullshit. You can look up all works up for free online. What a sorry argument. Copyrighted means you can’t reproduce it, not not look at it.
- callalex 3y agoThere’s probably an argument against my point, but this sure ain’t it. I can watch every Disney movie for free on the internet, but that doesn’t make it legal.
- Timwi 3y agoIt's legal in Germany. What's illegal here is unauthorized distribution. Downloading a copy of something from a public server cannot get you in trouble here. Only publishing does.
- V__ 3y agoIt's not and never was. In 2008 it even got raised from a civil to a criminal offense. It's a common misconception because it is more lucrative to go after people that also upload/publish due to higher possible damages.
- mortureb 3y agoFor the most part we’re talking about static images here, atleast for the current state of LLMs and those are all freely viewable online.
- lucideer 3y ago> Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image? I'd say they're banking on the horse having bolted by the time such a thing might happen (i.e. courts would need to force 1000s of very large powerful companies to pay millions of people - an insurmountable legal effort).
- timeon 3y agoSeems like we are experiencing another historical robbery.
- tticvs 3y agoOh no! Really? Surely you can point to what has been stolen, right?
- lucideer 3y agoLivelihoods
- tticvs 3y ago"I am no longer able to sell my product in the market since it has been commoditized to the benefit if everyone else" is not the same as "I have been robbed". This is literal Luddism.
- torginus 3y agoFrom the start OpenAI started with semantically overloading the "AI is an existential" risk argument from "AI is going to make me starve" to "AI is going to go rogue"
- lucideer 3y agoI don't really see AI as an existential risk (nor something that'll single-handedly starve people nor "go rogue" - unless one defines that as something like "having CVEs"). This is less about AI, per se, and more about corporate -vs- personal IP rights. Historically, IP law has bent to benefit large corporations while citing personal IP rights as the raison d'être (& never fulfilling on that justification). What OpenAI (& many others) are doing here is just very flagrantly demonstrating how that justification was only ever an excuse, & that restrictions imposed by the Berne Convention, et al, have never really applied to corporations at scale (outside of small case-by-case exceptional examples). The livelihoods being stolen are not being stolen by AI - rather it's a further reinforcement (scaling up) of a system that has been doing so for well over 100 years.
- klabb3 3y agoIt’s absolutely insane this is “allowed” under regular copyright, and now going into mass-consumer commercial products. Given the state of courts, I don’t have any hopes this will be reversed. They are certainly striking under-the-table deals with big IP holders like Disney to not poke the bears, but leave all smaller actors defenseless (or rather penniless, more so than they already are).
- callalex 3y ago>Aren't they afraid some court Sam Altman has already empirically proven himself to be rich enough to be above the courts with the whole WorldCoin thing, why should he assume it would suddenly be different now?
- tempaccount420 3y agoThere is nothing illegal about World Coin.
- ipaddr 3y agoIt's already illegal in some places and will be in more soon https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/02/kenyan-government-suspends-worldcoin-activity/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08...
- BurningFrog 3y agoA living artist should be able to request an image in the style of themselves.
- two_in_one 3y ago> again trained (without permission) on copyrighted work So far there is no solid proof of that. They didn't disclose the sources or the methodology. Except for 'trained' and 'copyrighted' the rest is questionable. Otherwise they would be already paying royalties. They could have used the output from prev version 2 with prompts generated by GPT, and then corrected by humans based on the produced image. Also they could use CV to analyze new/old images. I.e. if there is a new feature in the image add it to prompt and train again.