On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by Aeolun » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #177

sandworm101 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

I firmly believe that training models qualifies as fair use. I think it falls under research, and is used to push the scientific community forward. I also firmly believe that commercializing models built on top of copyrighted works (which all works start off as) does not qualify as fair use (or at least shouldn't) and that commercializing models build on copyrighted material is nothing more than license laundering. C…

If I read a lot of stories in a certain genre that I like, and I later write my own story, it’s almost by definition going to be a mish-mash of everything I like.

Should I pay the authors of the books I read when I sell mine?

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

#212

Post by graeme » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #170

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…

> 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…

You can remove your work from a search index anytime you want. Not so with work included in a training set

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

#213

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#214

Post by suddenexample » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

It's sad to me that so many in this community side with OpenAI/etc against the artists. It's understandable, because these companies have created a very cool and useful technology. But I think the arguments - from "it's not technically copying, it's just viewing copyrighted material and then producing its own version like a human is allowed to do" to "intellectual property/copyright is inherently flawed" - come from a lack of understanding.

Let's make an analogy that more people here will understand. If you built an app for your startup, and OpenAI trained on its source code such that any prompter could produce an app that's virtually identical with no effort - would that be OK with you? Would you claim that copyright is in fact irrelevant and that this doesn't constitute copying?

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

#215

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #156

nightski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's no problem right? Or are you just in a minority.

That is a non-suitor. A lot of people like hohos and Twinkies. That doesn't mean they arent stolen and that doesn't mean they are fine cuisine.

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

suddenexample wrote: post #214

It's sad to me that so many in this community side with OpenAI/etc against the artists. It's understandable, because these companies have created a very cool and useful technology. But I think the arguments - from "it's not technically copying, it's just viewing copyrighted material and then producing its own version like a human is allowed to do" to "intellectual property/copyright is inherently flawed" - come from…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by ta8645 » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

tapoxi wrote: post #166

ta8645 wrote: post #121

Earlier 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.

That's a matter of perspective. AI's do not make a copy of the source material. It very much just adjusts their internal weights, which from a broadminded perspective, can be seen as simple inspiration, and not copying.

Of course, just like a human artist, it could probably closely approximate the source material if it wanted to, but it would still be its own approximation, not an exact duplicate. As for plagiarism, we all have to be careful to rephrase things we've read elsewhere, and perhaps AI's need to be trained to do this a bit better... but it doesn't change the underlying fact that they're learning from the text they read, not storing a verbatim copy (at least, no more so than a human reader with a good memory)

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

#219

Post by wheelie_boy » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

unfamiliar wrote: post #178

Osmose wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think it is. What you describe is similar to any other industry disruption, and I don’t think those are unethical. I’d actually argue that preventing disruption is often (not always) unethical, because you artificially prolong an inefficient or inferior alternative.

I think the big difference is that it's not a direct replacement - it feeds off of the existing people while making it much harder for them to make a living.

It would be as if instead of cars running on gasoline, they ran on chopped up horseflesh. Not good for the horses, and not sustainable in the long term.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:08 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]