3 ms·
Well, with the status quo, there's no license required to train on the greatest works of art from centuries past. I recognize some of the concerns about AI but
by wyldfire 3y ago
Well, with the status quo, there's no license required to train on the greatest works of art from centuries past.
I recognize some of the concerns about AI but I don't think pinning hopes on copyright law will deliver anything remotely resembling a remedy to the problems you bring up.
- __loam 3y agoAre you talking about training a human or training an artist? Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference.
- wyldfire 3y ago> Are you talking about training a human or training an artist? Neither: I am talking about training a machine learning model. Unless that's what you meant by "artist"? > Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference. You may have misunderstood my comment. My comment was stating that there's only a portion of human art - the most recent decades of works - which are protected by a copyright. Models like Stable Diffusion could be re-trained instead on centuries of artworks and not infringe at all. So the problem described as "AI powered corporations to front-run the entire human race and sell everything we think back to us" - this problem is here regardless of whether licenses were purchased.
- __loam 3y agoYou're right on both counts. Things are a bit fraught in this thread so I apologize for misunderstanding you.