3 ms·
> I don’t understand why there needs to be a distinction from using copyrighted works to train computers vs people. The problem isn't that the works are copyri
by CharlesW 3y ago
> I don’t understand why there needs to be a distinction from using copyrighted works to train computers vs people.
The problem isn't that the works are copyrighted. It's perfectly ethical to build a business on licensed works in order to generate new text, imagery, audio, etc. based on those works. Adobe Firefly is an example of ethical generative AI trained on imagery Adobe owns, licenses, or is in the public domain.
- artninja1988 3y agoExcept the majority of people could have never conceived something like ai image gen existing, when they signed away their license to be used. And adobe isn't exactly a friendly company to deal with. This is exactly why I am for a free for all. If we make it so only big license holders and big tech can create these models, you'll have to go through some proprietary subscription service that goes down every couple days, while the creators get paid a couple of cent.
- wokwokwok 3y ago> while the creators get paid a couple of cent As opposed to a “free for all” where they get literally nothing? Are we really arguing the morality of who gets to screw over artists? :| My sympathy for people who want to be a part of that screwing them over rather than letting big companies get all the glory of screwing them over isn’t really very high.