4 ms·

This is great, and I will repeat something here I have mentioned in the past about AI image generator datasets. Instead of building image generators off of ima

This is great, and I will repeat something here I have mentioned in the past about AI image generator datasets. Instead of building image generators off of images scraped from people's art without their consent, we could use openly licensed images, and intentionally push the public towards licensing more of their images for open datasets by encouraging twitter and instagram/meta to add image license options to image uploads, and running some public service campaigns on these platforms to encourage use of open licenses to help build better datasets. At the same time the smaller image sets that would be available would encourage additional research in to sample efficiency, which I regularly hear would be a generally useful area for further research. This approach would ensure several things: Public datasets would be available to all, not just the major institutions (assuming enough people cared about open licensed models to push the major players to use them), sample efficiency would be improved, more people would get used to licensing their images for public use, and artists who did not want their style copied by these technologies would have their rights respected. That last point would have a HUGE effect on public opinion about AI, building trust between the public and the AI research community. Ultimately I am in favor of a world where intellectual property restrictions are sharply curtailed, but to do that ethically we would need to put in place other systems to provide for those whose livelihood depends upon their intellectual works. And if someone created a work before AI existed, and they reserved their legal rights for their work at the time of publication, I think that should be respected such that the work would be left out of machine learning datasets. This approach would take more work, but setting this expectation would encourage the tech industry to clarify image licenses on their platforms, ultimately promoting open culture and open image licenses.

Devasta 3y ago
Whats the benefit to artists to licensing works in a way thats favorable for AI models? Most artists hate the concept of AI art regardless of whether or not its a threat to their livelihoods.
- ssalka 3y ago
  I could see it slowly approaching the open source model - you do it because you care, and maybe some people will donate to you because they want to see your work continue. You can also say you've done it, so if you're a prolific artist it would probably look good. Also, I feel like the main reason artists have a beef with AI right now is mostly because lots of their published works were used without permission to train models. I think if instead SD/Midjourney et al had used open datasets curated in the way TaylorAlexander described, there would be a lot less pushback, because everyone would know the models were trained with consent of the underlying artists responsible for the training data's existence. There is still the concern of automation eliminating demand for work done by humans, but I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. It still might be very different, i.e. AI is much more powerful/enabling than Photoshop, but I'm not sure that'll change the outcome.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. I think artists will too, but so will everyone else - including many who wouldn't have the skills to create the art they want without AI and who would have had to hire an artist. Photoshop did this is a small extent, but it is possible that AI will meet most people's needs in most situations. As someone with little ability to draw or paint I'm excited for that future personally, but I can't blame professional artists for being nervous. That their own artwork is being used to train their replacement is just rubbing salt into their wounds. Right now, AI is putting out a lot of substandard work, and artists may find themselves employed just to fix the quirks of AI output, but I doubt they'll find that fulfilling. Eventually AI art may become so homogenized, derivative, and censored that it won't satisfy clients and their customers and if that happens demand for real artists will improve, but I think things could get really difficult for many professional artists in the meantime and I don't think many will be willing to offer up their art for AI the same way most people wouldn't offer to weave rope or sharpen axes for their executioner.
    - radlad 3y ago
- stale2002 3y ago
  The benefit is that each individual artist loses very little from their particular piece of art being licensed, but they can make money for that. The AI art models are still going to be trained regardless. One artist opting out, individually doesn't stop any of that.
  - Devasta 3y ago
    Artists lose little by licensing their art to AI models???
    - bongodongobob 3y ago
      Yeah, I don't see how they lose anything.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      Correct, they lose little. Because those art models don't need one individual artist. There are existing art models already out there, and new models aren't going to be stopped because one artist didn't license their art.
    - numpad0 3y ago
      It's kind of true, in the sense that, artists wants control, not money. Money is for patrons to make or lose. That's why these revenue sharing discussions don't go anywhere.
- wrsh07 3y ago
  What's the benefit of Wikipedia? Or MIT license on your open source library? Allowing people to remix your stuff can lead to awesome outcomes, just not personally financially beneficial
ipaddr 3y ago
So an image uploaded by a random person (not necessarily the copyright owner) to twitter and it automatically is added to this public set? Not sure legally it would be any different.
- macksd 3y ago
  The understanding (or level of giving a crap) the average social media user has of copyright is pathetic. How often do you see "DM for credit" or "no copyright intended"?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - numpad0 3y ago
    Depends on what circles you're in. Personally I used to see a lot of "ask permissions for reposts" purely as euphemism for "don't repost ever". They've since moved to outright saying so.
    - macksd 3y ago
      That was already the default situation of copyright. Unless it's fair use, you can't reproduce without license. It's the reproducers who don't care and don't understand.
adzm 3y ago
This is pretty much what Adobe Firefly does, being trained on stock images that they have rights to.
dheera 3y ago
> we could use openly licensed images There simply aren't enough of them. Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. This dataset of 88k images is 0.0017% of that. Also, it's worth noting that intellectual property is a weird construct. Human artists are trained from looking at copyrighted works their entire lifetime. If you asked me to draw a cartoonistic bear I cannot guarantee you that it doesn't vaguely look like Winnie the Pooh or Baloo. I've seen those things and can't un-erase them from my head. And if you prevented me from ever seeing copyrighted works for my whole life, I might not be able to draw anything. So why are we holding AI to a different standard?
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  > Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. Right, which is why work on sample-efficiency would be so valuable. > So why are we holding AI to a different standard? Because it is an automated computer system, not a human being. It can be held to a different standard because it is an entirely different system.
- ufocia 3y ago
  I don't think we are on the training side. I think the artists would like us to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
datagram 3y ago
I was thinking about this the other day; it would be really interesting to have big corporations whose profits depend on public-domain data. We might actually see lobbying to decrease copyright terms, to counter companies like Disney trying to extend copyright until the end of time.

Devasta 3y ago

Whats the benefit to artists to licensing works in a way thats favorable for AI models? Most artists hate the concept of AI art regardless of whether or not its a threat to their livelihoods.

ssalka 3y ago
I could see it slowly approaching the open source model - you do it because you care, and maybe some people will donate to you because they want to see your work continue. You can also say you've done it, so if you're a prolific artist it would probably look good. Also, I feel like the main reason artists have a beef with AI right now is mostly because lots of their published works were used without permission to train models. I think if instead SD/Midjourney et al had used open datasets curated in the way TaylorAlexander described, there would be a lot less pushback, because everyone would know the models were trained with consent of the underlying artists responsible for the training data's existence. There is still the concern of automation eliminating demand for work done by humans, but I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. It still might be very different, i.e. AI is much more powerful/enabling than Photoshop, but I'm not sure that'll change the outcome.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. I think artists will too, but so will everyone else - including many who wouldn't have the skills to create the art they want without AI and who would have had to hire an artist. Photoshop did this is a small extent, but it is possible that AI will meet most people's needs in most situations. As someone with little ability to draw or paint I'm excited for that future personally, but I can't blame professional artists for being nervous. That their own artwork is being used to train their replacement is just rubbing salt into their wounds. Right now, AI is putting out a lot of substandard work, and artists may find themselves employed just to fix the quirks of AI output, but I doubt they'll find that fulfilling. Eventually AI art may become so homogenized, derivative, and censored that it won't satisfy clients and their customers and if that happens demand for real artists will improve, but I think things could get really difficult for many professional artists in the meantime and I don't think many will be willing to offer up their art for AI the same way most people wouldn't offer to weave rope or sharpen axes for their executioner.
  - radlad 3y ago
stale2002 3y ago
The benefit is that each individual artist loses very little from their particular piece of art being licensed, but they can make money for that. The AI art models are still going to be trained regardless. One artist opting out, individually doesn't stop any of that.
- Devasta 3y ago
  Artists lose little by licensing their art to AI models???
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't see how they lose anything.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Correct, they lose little. Because those art models don't need one individual artist. There are existing art models already out there, and new models aren't going to be stopped because one artist didn't license their art.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    It's kind of true, in the sense that, artists wants control, not money. Money is for patrons to make or lose. That's why these revenue sharing discussions don't go anywhere.
wrsh07 3y ago
What's the benefit of Wikipedia? Or MIT license on your open source library? Allowing people to remix your stuff can lead to awesome outcomes, just not personally financially beneficial

ipaddr 3y ago

So an image uploaded by a random person (not necessarily the copyright owner) to twitter and it automatically is added to this public set? Not sure legally it would be any different.

macksd 3y ago
The understanding (or level of giving a crap) the average social media user has of copyright is pathetic. How often do you see "DM for credit" or "no copyright intended"?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- numpad0 3y ago
  Depends on what circles you're in. Personally I used to see a lot of "ask permissions for reposts" purely as euphemism for "don't repost ever". They've since moved to outright saying so.
  - macksd 3y ago
    That was already the default situation of copyright. Unless it's fair use, you can't reproduce without license. It's the reproducers who don't care and don't understand.

adzm 3y ago

This is pretty much what Adobe Firefly does, being trained on stock images that they have rights to.

dheera 3y ago

> we could use openly licensed images There simply aren't enough of them. Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. This dataset of 88k images is 0.0017% of that. Also, it's worth noting that intellectual property is a weird construct. Human artists are trained from looking at copyrighted works their entire lifetime. If you asked me to draw a cartoonistic bear I cannot guarantee you that it doesn't vaguely look like Winnie the Pooh or Baloo. I've seen those things and can't un-erase them from my head. And if you prevented me from ever seeing copyrighted works for my whole life, I might not be able to draw anything. So why are we holding AI to a different standard?

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> Stable Diffusion is trained on 5 billion images. That kind of scale doesn't exist in public domain artwork. Right, which is why work on sample-efficiency would be so valuable. > So why are we holding AI to a different standard? Because it is an automated computer system, not a human being. It can be held to a different standard because it is an entirely different system.
ufocia 3y ago
I don't think we are on the training side. I think the artists would like us to.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

datagram 3y ago

I was thinking about this the other day; it would be really interesting to have big corporations whose profits depend on public-domain data. We might actually see lobbying to decrease copyright terms, to counter companies like Disney trying to extend copyright until the end of time.