[deleted]
On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
111–120 of 957 posts
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#112Silicon Valley does not understand the concept of consent.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#113I wonder what effects AI ripping off today's artists will have on the next generation. They will grow up with AI "art" generators. Will they be concerned enough about AI-ripping them off that the don't put out novel, "human-made" works of art? Will they put down the AI tools long enough to learn "manual" forms of art?
Yeah, it's over. Why would a kid want to spend thousands of hours practicing with pencil and paper, when they can get a much more impressive result by typing a couple of words on a web site?
Because they find the process of creativity and creation to be a fun way to spend their time?
Why do people do anything that has an arguably better and more efficient option available?
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#114The sooner anyone making profit from models trained on creators proprietary content start paying for the content they’re using the better for creators, society and even the AI companies. It’s pretty tiring hearing people argue about whether copyright law applies to AI companies or not. It applies. Just get on and sort out a proper licensing model.
> "The bottom line is this," the firm, known as a16z, wrote. "Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development." > The firm said payment for all of the copyrighted material already used in LLMs would cost the companies that built them "tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year in royalty payments." https://www.bus…
Sounds like they need to find someone good at developing business models who can help them figure one out.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if it applies here. Midjourney's use intends to substitute the artists' work, and is commercial.
Unless it's a 1 for 1 replica I don't see how it's a substitute in the copyright sense.
it's derived from the original and competes with the original
if it was parody or commentary or otherwise found a new market, it might be allowed under fair use, but the fourth factor of fair use concerns the effect on the market value of the original
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the entire post (it's short) is well worth a read.
And from the following day, their paraphrasing of https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/4/23946353/generative-ai-co... is succinct: > Meta: We stole so much stuff that, actually, we didn't steal any stuff > Google: If things were different, things would be totally different > Andreeson Horowitz: But we already spent so much money > Microsoft: Think about how this would hurt the little guys, like us > Anthropic: Fucking sh…
This is a little oblique, but isn't there a parallel to the music piracy debates of the 90s here? The defense of those who steal training data, "It's not stealing because I'm only taking a little tiny piece from a whole bunch of people", seems like a neat inversion of the defense offered by people torrenting mp3s in their dorm rooms.
It's worth noting that, back when it suddenly became technically feasible to copy all songs for free, the response from the rightsholders of music was, essentially, to demand that we all collectively pretend it isn't. It might make sense for the rightsholders of training data to try to do the same, if they could speak with one voice and if they had lobbyists, but I guess the fact that they can't and don't settles that.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#117> But I can't even get cartoons to most people for free now, without doing unpaid work for the profit-making companies who own the most use channels of communication This is the sticking point for me. OpenAI isn't a profit-making company, but it's certainly a valuable company. A valuable company that is built from the work of content others created without transferring any value back to them. Regardless of legalities…
> Put it this way - you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from OpenAIs training, what value does OpenAI have? What you probably get is a LLM that can perfectly understand well written text as you might find on Wikipedia, but which would struggle severely with colloquial language of the kind found on Reddit and Twitter. > then it should give some of that value back to the content. That's literally bu…
"That's literally built into their corporate rules for how to take investment money, and when those rules were written they were criticised because people didn't think they'd ever grow enough for it to matter. "
that sounds like insane bullshit to me. they're trained on the whole internet. there's no way they give back to the whole of the internet, more likely a lot of jobs will be taken away by their work.
plus, there was no consent.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#118> But I can't even get cartoons to most people for free now, without doing unpaid work for the profit-making companies who own the most use channels of communication This is the sticking point for me. OpenAI isn't a profit-making company, but it's certainly a valuable company. A valuable company that is built from the work of content others created without transferring any value back to them. Regardless of legalities…
>> If you think OpenAI is less valuable because it can't use copyrighted content, then it should give some of that value back to the content.
But we are allowed to use copyrighted content. We are not allowed to copy copyrighted content. We are allowed to view and consume it, to be influenced by it, and under many circumstances even outright copy it. If one doesn't want anyone to see/consume or be influenced by one's copyrighted work, then lock it in a box and don't show it to anyone.
I have some, but diminishing sympathy for artists screaming about how AI generates images too similar to their work. Yes, the output does look very similar to your work. But if I take your work and compare it to the millions of other people's work, I'd bet I can find some preexisting human-made art that also looks similar to your stuff too.
This is why clothing doesn't qualify for copyright. No matter how original you think your clothing seems, someone in the last many thousands of years of fashion has done it before. Visual art may be approaching a similar point. No matter how original you think your drawings are, someone out there has already done something similar. They may not have created exactly the same image, but neither does AI literally copy images. That reality doesn't kill visual arts as it didn't kill off the fashion industry.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Put it this way - you remove all the copyrighted, permission-less content from OpenAIs training, what value does OpenAI have? What you probably get is a LLM that can perfectly understand well written text as you might find on Wikipedia, but which would struggle severely with colloquial language of the kind found on Reddit and Twitter. > then it should give some of that value back to the content. That's literally bu…
> That's literally built into their corporate rules for how to take investment money, and when those rules were written they were criticised because people didn't think they'd ever grow enough for it to matter. How is OpenAI compensating the owners of IP they trained their models on? Or is that not what you mean? It's certainly how I read the part of the GP comment you quoted.
So far, looks like funding a UBI study. As the IP owners are approximately "everyone" in law, UBI is kinda the only way to compensate all the IP owners.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a reference to Instagram, et. al., where distributing your illustrations there implicitly allows thier Ad machine to profit from your work
This seems like a strange criticism to me - if you're posting your illustrations on social media, it's presumably because you feel that you're getting value out of doing so. Who cares if they're also getting value out of you doing it, particularly when that value comes at no cost to you? If you sell your art, then art marketplaces and printers and shipping services all profit from your work, but I don't imagine she's…
> Who cares if they're also getting value out of you doing it,
The author, presumably.
> particularly when that value comes at no cost to you?
Who would (has) argued that there is a cost.
> in return for providing a useful service to you (and one you don't have to use if you don't think it's useful).
I think they agree with you, and are making the claim that since they choose not to use the service (considering it exploitative), it is getting increasingly difficult to distribute their work in a way they find ethical.
I'm not sure I agree with their arguments completely, but they aren't really "strange" as you suggest.