Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

catandgirl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 957 posts

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#131

Post by jMyles »

chrisknyfe wrote: post #88

Those of you who are desperately trying to soften the blow - "they're talking about facebook, not OpenAI", "it's fair use, the license terms are irrelevant", "nothing has been taken from them" - you need to allow yourself to think the thought that maybe your AI startup's business model is only valuable because of theft. You need to let yourself entertain the idea that maybe you are only getting paid a cushy tech sala…

You are using the word "theft" in a way which does not describe conduct that is actually theft.

Not all of us participate in the form of thought control that has been euphemistically pushed as "intellectual property."

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#132

Post by nmz »

madeofpalk wrote: post #36

> 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…

It would be nice if you used a label you had to pay a fee for whoever owns the label, if you don't want to pay a fee to the owners of an artstyle, then you can always use public domain works. Hell, this might be even better for public domain works and restoration if a small fee went to them as well.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#133

Post by croes »

andybak wrote: post #48
croes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it's still fair use if you become one of most valuable companies, hence the word "fair" in fair use.

It's a specific legal term - so the everyday meaning of the words isn't relevant as far as I understand it.

There is a reason why the word was chosen, in essence, it is about the meaning of the word

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#134

Post by rimeice »

endo_bunker wrote: post #109
chrisknyfe wrote: post #88

Those of you who are desperately trying to soften the blow - "they're talking about facebook, not OpenAI", "it's fair use, the license terms are irrelevant", "nothing has been taken from them" - you need to allow yourself to think the thought that maybe your AI startup's business model is only valuable because of theft. You need to let yourself entertain the idea that maybe you are only getting paid a cushy tech sala…

nothing has been taken from them

Value has been taken. Motivation to create has been taken if the second you upload something it gets sucked in to a model that any old person can create infinite iterations.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#135

Post by Cheer2171 »

endo_bunker wrote: post #109
chrisknyfe wrote: post #88

Those of you who are desperately trying to soften the blow - "they're talking about facebook, not OpenAI", "it's fair use, the license terms are irrelevant", "nothing has been taken from them" - you need to allow yourself to think the thought that maybe your AI startup's business model is only valuable because of theft. You need to let yourself entertain the idea that maybe you are only getting paid a cushy tech sala…

nothing has been taken from them

Nothing except their ability to make a living.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#136

Post by hutzlibu »

surfingdino wrote: post #31

AI business model is that of a school bully who a) steals a cup of lemonade from your lemonade stand, b) drinks it, c) pees into the cup, d) sells it to others, e) convinces the cheerleaders to go around telling everyone that you are not going to be able to make or sell your own lemonade anymore.

All your points would imply that the original art was degraded somehow. How?

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#137

Post by runnr_az »

minimaxir wrote: post #103
runnr_az wrote: post #94

I don't think there was an actual list of artists released, was there?

It was in a court filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.40...

Yeah... but I don't think it's an actual list of artists that were used? Here's a relevant comment from the last discussion of this on HN: "Looking at the source tweet[1], this isn't a list of artists specifically used to train Midjourney, but instead is a list of artists used to pre-render additives that can be added to an existing prompt much faster than an arbitrary addition."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38908079

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#138

Post by the_af »

0xf00ff00f wrote: post #43
ssgodderidge wrote: post #26

I 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?

Have you ever taken a pencil or a brush to a blank sheet of paper?

Thousands of people do and produce wonderful works of art. Even before the AI craze, not everyone embraced even "plain old" digital art. The physicality of feeling a graphite pencil scratching a blank page is gratifying and cannot be reproduced by typing a prompt somewhere online.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#139

Post by Osmose »

sandworm101 wrote: post #118
madeofpalk wrote: post #36

> 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…

Because we are humans and our capability of abusing those rights is limited. The scale and speed at which LLMs can abuse copyrighted work to threaten the livelihoods of the authors of those works is reason enough to consider it unethical.

Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

#140

Post by zanellato19 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #118
madeofpalk wrote: post #36

> 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…

Who is "we" here? Are you making a distinction between people and machines? If I built a machine that randomly copied from a big sample of arts that I wanted, would that machine be ok?

OpenAI built a machine that does exactly that. They just sampled _everyone_.

Post reply on HN