> winning bidder wished to be kept anonymous
I wonder if this is a marketing stunt, or an effort to increase the visibility and legitimacy of AI generated art.
Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
81–90 of 146 posts
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh gosh, he even links an issue where one of the guys who sold the painting (Hugo Caselles-Dupre, hence the username Caselles) literally asks for help setting up. So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry,…
It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat…
> If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it.
And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem.
Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh gosh, he even links an issue where one of the guys who sold the painting (Hugo Caselles-Dupre, hence the username Caselles) literally asks for help setting up. So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry,…
It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat…
I think the "taken advantage of" thing is more about the crappy way they behaved on the Github issues ("really disappointing") etc than the idea of using his code.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that people don't seem to understand that most open source licences don't require attribution. If you have released your code according to a licence, what right do you have to complain that people are using that code in accordance with that licence? In this case though, it looks like Obvious did set out to attribute the original GAN author and Christie's have omitted that.
> what right do you have to complain that people are using that code in accordance with that licence? It’s not legally required to credit the author of the original code, but it’s a jerk move not to do so, especially if the work is primarily not your own. All it does is discourage developers from releasing things open source, which is very bad in the long run.
But the creator has the freedom to choose any license they like, any at all. They chose a very permissive one.
Why is it being a jerk to engage in a behavior that someone freely gave their blessing to?
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#85"The painting, called Portrait of Edmond Belamy, was created by a Paris-based art collective called Obvious." Hopefully the person who wrote the code, freely shared it and even helped them to get it running will see some of that ridiculous windfall: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073
It isn't required by the license, but it is required by the primate fairness sense. A donation to the open-source project would be appropriate. Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Which will likely not tarnish their enjoyment of their $144k each before auction fees and taxes, but might discourage future AI/ML developers from releasing under such a perm…
> Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches.
Exactly. It doesn't sound like they are afraid of this but they really should be. Nobody will want to buy the next artwork of a collective with that reputation.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#86[deleted]
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#87It has nothing to do with the object of sale but mostly with the fact that it's Christie's effort.
Try to sell identical thing on eBay for $10 and watch the world making fun of you at zero bids.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat…
> If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem. Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
> In fact, making your code free for everyone to use probably is hurting the web,
It's the main reason there is a widely used public web rather than it, if it succeeded at all, being another academic niche tool alongside gopher.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it’s a jerk move... What on earth are you on about!? The author has every possible opportunity to set out whatever he wants in the license. If he wants anyone who uses it to name their firstborn after him he can put that in there. If he doesn’t then there is absolutely no issue or nothing jerk-like of anyone who follows to the letter he license the author decided to use. It’s up to the author to specify what he…
Is it really that hard for you to understand what the GP was saying? A jerk is somehow who, while not breaking the law, acts like..a jerk. They seem to think being able to get away with something somehow makes it OK. (e.g. bullies, trolls etc) Society relies on most people not acting like jerks most of the time. You seem to be saying, if someone follows the letter of the law, they possibly can't be a jerk. I guess yo…
The point isn’t that it’s legal or not. It’s that the creator -expressed his wishes- for how his work would be treated when he chose his license.
There’s nothing unethical about respecting people’s freely chosen and publicly expressed wishes.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem. Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
> In fact, making your code free for everyone to use probably is hurting the web, It's the main reason there is a widely used public web rather than it, if it succeeded at all, being another academic niche tool alongside gopher.
Well, assuming that's true, it has little-to-no impact on how things should be going forward. The web is very clearly here to stay. At the very least people who want credit and payment for their work should not be encouraged to use OSI licenses.