121–130 of 488 posts
I’m not optimistic that their impact will be positive though.
Regarding the ethics. Thought experiment: I look at a copyrighted image, get inspiration, and then draw a new image (which is not the same as the copyrighted image). Is that ethical? But if I do this millions of times, after looking at millions of copyrighted images, is it still ethical (as long as I don't recreated copyrighted images)? Tough questions!
So Donald Buck who is a duck is too derivative, but Ronald Cluck who is a bear might be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The watermark.
What watermark? The model is open source and free for people to make their own modifications. I don't see how any watermark can survive in those conditions.
All this is super, super interesting to me. I don't think anybody really knows how it will play out, there's a lot of good arguments floating around.
One day, images generated with these AIs will become ubiquitous online, and new AIs training on data will wind up with feedback problems because they got trained on photos that are AI generated, possibly even ones they themselves generated! This tech is a huge deal. Huge. Ubiquitous unique, beautiful art. Entire movies made by machines. Too many to even watch them all. Actor models that aren't real people owned by th…
Regarding the ethics. Thought experiment: I look at a copyrighted image, get inspiration, and then draw a new image (which is not the same as the copyrighted image). Is that ethical? But if I do this millions of times, after looking at millions of copyrighted images, is it still ethical (as long as I don't recreated copyrighted images)? Tough questions!
Depending on how close it is it may not even be legal. To give a music analogy: at least in my country, if you take a melody, change all the notes' durations, and transpose it you'd still infringe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expect hit actors from today to become digitized and immortalized on the screen. Eventually there will be a cannon of standard "actors" (customized per movie of course) that will never change once they settle in on the appropriate archetypes.
This is the premise of the film The Congress, based loosely on Stanisław Lem's The Futurological Congress.
One day, images generated with these AIs will become ubiquitous online, and new AIs training on data will wind up with feedback problems because they got trained on photos that are AI generated, possibly even ones they themselves generated! This tech is a huge deal. Huge. Ubiquitous unique, beautiful art. Entire movies made by machines. Too many to even watch them all. Actor models that aren't real people owned by th…
Expect hit actors from today to become digitized and immortalized on the screen. Eventually there will be a cannon of standard "actors" (customized per movie of course) that will never change once they settle in on the appropriate archetypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rapidly getting good enough for things like stock images for blog posts. Where you just need an image vaguely related and don't want to pay for an actual stock image.
After the novelty wears off and everyone has already seen tons of these automatically generated images, will writers still want to adorn their blogs with these generic illustrations? Or will it turn negative: "If you have nothing to say, add an AI illustration." I could see it becoming a marker of low-brow taste where vaguely related illustrations become something akin to decorating your home with velvet paintings of…
Regarding the ethics. Thought experiment: I look at a copyrighted image, get inspiration, and then draw a new image (which is not the same as the copyrighted image). Is that ethical? But if I do this millions of times, after looking at millions of copyrighted images, is it still ethical (as long as I don't recreated copyrighted images)? Tough questions!
I can write a book about a boy wizard's adventures wizard school and that's legal, but if I call them Harry Potter it isn't.
I can create Harry Potter fanart and distribute it online pretty freely - but slap it on a mug and sell it, and that's illegal.
I can record an audio description of a painting that's as detailed as I like and it's legal to distribute - but take a photograph of the same painting and it's a derivative work, no matter how artistic my choice of camera settings.
We don't really have any prior examples that are precisely like these huge ML models trained on copyrighted data - and depending on which imprecise analogy you choose, you can come to a different conclusion.
After using SD heavily for a week, I half agree with this. It is incredibly disruptive, and it's wild how much it accelerates the creative process. I'll give you that. But two things I've noticed: First, artists will still have a massive advantage over non-artists with this tool. A photographer who intimately knows the different lenses and cameras and industry terms will get to a representation of their idea much fas…