3 ms·

You won't get what you want with those sorts of deals. OK, say every artist gets $100, one time (exact amount varies but would not be much). Everything's prope

You won't get what you want with those sorts of deals. OK, say every artist gets $100, one time (exact amount varies but would not be much). Everything's properly licensed according to you and the artists are essentially no better off, and the models are now good enough to create new training data for the future and artists never see any more money. You've won, I guess?

imtringued 3y ago
Training AI on AI generated data doesn't add anything. The AI already has all the weights to generate the image, so you are at best just reinforcing the existing weights by weighing them more than others. The closest thing you could do is e.g. have a second model that does something novel like create a 3D model from a 2D image and then you try to animate the model and a third model verifies the quality of the output. This then allows you to selectively reinforce the 2D model using information from the 3D model but this isn't simply generating more training data. I honestly can't follow your argument. Doing something silly doesn't make you the underdog.
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  My point is that say every artist gets some small token payment once, and then what? That's not enough to live on, so we're right back to square one and we've solved nothing. Incidentally yes, training AI on AI output will work fine, as long as you have a signal of quality. For example, upvotes in a subreddit would work fine. But that's not crucial to my point, which is that what OP is asking for will accomplish exactly nothing.
sensanaty 3y ago
I'm not an expert in the field, but is feeding the model its own output a good idea? Seems like it would only increase weights that are already present in the training data and make it harder and harder to break out of it, ending up with generic output that matches all of its other output in the long run. Regardless, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea but it's definitely a start, especially when the current reality is that they're just stealing all the artist's shit and everyone gets $0 instead of $100. As you said, artists are no better off in that universe, but the worst case possible for them is what's happening right this very moment, where they just get fucked over with 0 compensation.
stale2002 3y ago
Yeah people don't understand that the current situation of infringement is only temporary. People are already working on completely copyright safe models and those models can still destroy the entire art market. Ex: adobe has a gen AI model, trained on content that they own. What now artists? Can't hide behind fake outrage over infringement for that model. But that model can still end the art industry. I wonder what the new argument will be then when fully non infringing models destroy the market regardless.

imtringued 3y ago

Training AI on AI generated data doesn't add anything. The AI already has all the weights to generate the image, so you are at best just reinforcing the existing weights by weighing them more than others. The closest thing you could do is e.g. have a second model that does something novel like create a 3D model from a 2D image and then you try to animate the model and a third model verifies the quality of the output. This then allows you to selectively reinforce the 2D model using information from the 3D model but this isn't simply generating more training data. I honestly can't follow your argument. Doing something silly doesn't make you the underdog.

gaganyaan 3y ago
My point is that say every artist gets some small token payment once, and then what? That's not enough to live on, so we're right back to square one and we've solved nothing. Incidentally yes, training AI on AI output will work fine, as long as you have a signal of quality. For example, upvotes in a subreddit would work fine. But that's not crucial to my point, which is that what OP is asking for will accomplish exactly nothing.

sensanaty 3y ago

I'm not an expert in the field, but is feeding the model its own output a good idea? Seems like it would only increase weights that are already present in the training data and make it harder and harder to break out of it, ending up with generic output that matches all of its other output in the long run. Regardless, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea but it's definitely a start, especially when the current reality is that they're just stealing all the artist's shit and everyone gets $0 instead of $100. As you said, artists are no better off in that universe, but the worst case possible for them is what's happening right this very moment, where they just get fucked over with 0 compensation.

stale2002 3y ago

Yeah people don't understand that the current situation of infringement is only temporary. People are already working on completely copyright safe models and those models can still destroy the entire art market. Ex: adobe has a gen AI model, trained on content that they own. What now artists? Can't hide behind fake outrage over infringement for that model. But that model can still end the art industry. I wonder what the new argument will be then when fully non infringing models destroy the market regardless.