3 ms·
>It took a truly colossal amount of human time and effort to build AI systems. It takes significant amount of energy to run those AI systems. Those people and
by SirMaster 2y ago
>It took a truly colossal amount of human time and effort to build AI systems. It takes significant amount of energy to run those AI systems.
Those people and effort aren't at all tied to the people who are making and using the art.
In the past every individual person would have to individually study art and some style and practice for years of their life to be able to replicate it really well. And for each piece of artwork it could take them days to make 1 single piece.
I would argue that this is why it wasn't really problematic to copy someone's work or style. Because the individual time and effort per person to even do that was so high.
But now that time and effort for an individual is next to nothing.
- munksbeer 2y agoI do wonder what the outcome would be for a model trained only on truly non copyright work, and derivatives from there. I'm no AI expert, but from what I understand they use some models to generate data with which to train further models. I'd be interested in the output, whether it would eventually just match what we have now anyway, so the copyright question may end up moot. I wonder how the argument would shift at that point? I think in reality, it is probably too late for that, because the internet is now polluted with AI generated images which would be consumed by any "ethical" model anyway.
- fc417fc802 2y agoI expect it would require significantly more human labor to train (ie no longer fully unsupervised). I imagine that this constraint would lead to significant additional research to improve the efficiency of the training process, and that novel approaches would be developed. In other words I think it would suck up a lot of money over a few years and then we would arrive back pretty much where we are now.