So can midjourney replicate the art style or not? I was seeing a lot of back and forth on whether that list was actually used to train, and I haven't seen a single artist manage to claim that their style can accurately be replicated.
On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
191–200 of 957 posts
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#192On the same topic from another webcomic: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/01/03/terminarter (text commentary below the comic, in case your OS has decided to conceal the scroll bar from you and you didn't notice the page is longer)
I'm curious if Gabe over at penny-arcade would be upset if his comics were used in an art class to train a new generation of artists.
>> If my interlocutor isn't prepared to make any distinctions between a human being and a machine designed to mimic one, I think that I can't meaningfully discuss this with them. I hate that this is the case; it must be seen as a personal failing. I can't do it, though. These models aren't people. They don't know anything. They don't want anything. They don't need anything. I won't privilege it over a person. And I certainly won't privilege its master.
Perhaps if you read Gabe's post you could have saved yourself the trouble of making this comment.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#193I'm a little skeptical that this artist's work was "used to train Midjourney" just because their name appears on that list. My understanding is that the list in question is just a scraped list of artist names from Wikipedia, and was used as a list of possible styles to try in prompts, to see if CLIP happened to know them. I don't think that being on the list necessarily means that an artist's work was used to train M…
[flagged]
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#194This is an understandable but at the same time petty feeling to be attached to. Progress is more important than your right to limit the uses of your work.
> Progress is more important than your right to... Hard no. We progress civilization so that we (as humans) may benefit. Progress at any cost is pathological, see universal paperclips as the extreme example.
I don't think we even have a choice here. It's unstopable.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#195> 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…
> Regardless of legalities, that's wrong to me. I see it differently. To me, if you post your work online as an artist, it's really there for everyone to view and be inspired by. As long as nobody copies it verbatim, don't think you've been hurt by any other usage. If another artist views it, and is inspired by it... so be it. If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done.
> If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done.
You had me till that^ line. In your example if "inspired" human start competing with you, then there is harm. If the inspired human is replaced by an AI, then it also harms. By harm I am referring to competition.
So instead of saying "no harm done", then maybe its more accurate to say "same harm as a other humans being inspired by your work".
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#196My 2 cents - people often compare this AI to automation that came before say the printing press, or automatic fabric production . But it’s actually far worse. If all the calligraphers drop dead, the printing press still works. If everyone who hand makes fabrics drops dead, the automatic fabric machines continue to develop. But midjourney doesn’t work without artists, it depends on them like a parasite depends on its…
> If all the calligraphers drop dead, the printing press still works.
If all artists drop dead, MidJourney still has a trained model that will continue to work.... it relied on artists to become operational (just like the printing press and automatic looms relied on their respective artisans success) but it is not dependent on them to continue to function.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#197> 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…
Does copyright law say you can ingest copyrighted work at very large scale and sell derivates of those works to gain massive profit / massive market capitalizations? Honestly wondering. This seems to be the crux issue here.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#198> 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's products have? 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 Couldn't we say the same thing about search engines? What value would google have without content to search for? Is the conclusion we should ma…
The deal with search engines was always that you would get traffic out of then.
Use my content, to get people to me. Google's snippets kinda broke that deal and people have indeed complained about that, but otoh you can still technically opt out of being indexed.
It's not clear how you opt out of LLMs.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regardless of legalities, that's wrong to me. I see it differently. To me, if you post your work online as an artist, it's really there for everyone to view and be inspired by. As long as nobody copies it verbatim, don't think you've been hurt by any other usage. If another artist views it, and is inspired by it... so be it. If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done.
AI doesn't get inspired. It's not human. It adds everything about it to its endless stream of levers to pull, and if you pull the right ones, it will just give you the source verbatim as proven by the NYT lawsuit filing where it was just outputting unaltered copywritten NYT article text.
> as proven by the NYT lawsuit filing
I would be careful in asserting that it's proven until the evidence is heard in court and we have all the data.
Re: On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if it applies here. Midjourney's use intends to substitute the artists' work, and is commercial.
No one is using Midjourney to replace artists. Artists are using Midjourney to speed up the most tedious parts of their work.
Absolutely not true. Non-artists use it to replace the need to purchase art and art services.
That said it is unclear if the connection is strong enough between a given artist and their replacement.