491–500 of 957 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless it's a 1 for 1 replica I don't see how it's a substitute in the copyright sense.
We already have laws covering close derivatives - in this case it might not be clear who is the inspiration but there is no novel creativity... everything these networks produce is derived from artists - there is no added novelty.
I'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…
An easy way to tell is to instruct Midjourney to create something “in the style of ______ “ I don’t currently have a MJ subscription or I’d try it.
Lesson being: give yourself a name as an artist that cannot be used easily in an AI prompt.
I think some musicians did this with artist names and track names that meant they couldn't easily be represented as MP3s, but could easily be printed on the tracklisting on the CD inlay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Emphatically no they shouldn't. The capabilities are vastly different. Fair use should not apply to AI. Fair use applies even to use of traditional algorithms, like the thumbnailing/caching performed by search engines. If I make a spam detector network, why should it not be covered by fair use?
No idea on the legality, but common sense suggests that the difference would be that a spam detector doesn't replace the products that it was trained on, while AI-generated "art" is intended to replace human artists.
The extent to which it supplants the original work is one of the fair use considerations.
I think it'd make more sense to have a stance of "current LLMs and image generators should be judged by fair use factors and I believe they'd fail", though I'd still disagree, instead of having machine learning models subject to a different set of rules than humans and traditional algorithms.
There is simple way to fix this. Ban private large models trained on public data, require them to be public weights. If a company wants to train large private model, they can do it with their own data.
If you want a large model with public weights, just do it yourself. Nobody is stopping you.
And I am in favor of more stringent licenses than that: you must pay me to use my data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs have never been less soul crushing, or more creative, in the history of humanity. And that becomes increasingly true every decade. Do you know what a job does? What a company does? It contributes to society! It produces something that someone else values. That they value so much they're willing to pay for it. Being part of this isn't a bad thing. It's what makes society work. A job/company entertains. It keeps t…
Hey. Thanks. Sorry about wasting your time. Shouldn't have started in the first place. It was my fault for trying to make a silly point. Too mid to understand your point.
Find the intersection of something that people increasingly value, that you enjoy, and that you can compete at.
The best proof that people value something is that they're spending money for it. If people aren't spending money, they don't value it, and you probably don't want to go into it. If people aren't spending more and more money on it every year, then it's not increasing in value, and you probably don't want to go into it.
The best proof that you enjoy something is that you enjoyed it in the past. Things you liked as a kid, activities that excited you as a young adult, etc., are often the best candidates.
Look for intersections of the two things above. Do some Googling, do some research.
Finally, you need to be able to compete at it. If you do something worse than everyone else does it, then no one will pick you, because you're probably not being helpful. The simple answer to this is to practice to make yourself better. But most people don't want to do that. A better answer to this is to be more unique, so you can avoid the competition. Don't do a job that has a title, a college major, and millions of talented applicants. It's not that helpful to society to do something a hundred million other people can already do, which is why there's more competition and lower wages.
When you find the intersection of what's valued and what you enjoy, call up some people in those fields and ask what's rare. What in their area is needed. What are they missing. What is no one else doing.
Or just start your own company. That's the easiest way to be unique. But it's hard.
Finally, if you feel you're too "mid," then make sure your standards aren't crazy. Don't let society tell you that you need to be a millionaire with a yacht and designer clothes to be happy. Get a normal 9 to 5 with some purpose in it, that you can be proud of, that others appreciate. Live within your means and don't stress yourself out financially. Spend your free time doing things you like. Take care of your health, find good relationships, and treasure them. That's a happy life at any income. I know a bunch of miserable depressed rich people who are very good at making money and very bad at health/relationships/etc., which is the real stuff that life is made out of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use. Licenses like that are enforced under copyright, if the use is not subject to copyright, the license terms are irrelevant.
So the somewhat necessary followup question: if Midjourney or ChatGPT includes a license in front of its model weights or access to its model that forbids using those weights or output from its model to create a competitor, is it fair use to ignore that license? In both cases, we're relying on copyright. The companies are saying that you can access the models under a license. It's not too hard to circumvent that lice…
Evolve or die. The world is cruel. This is true for everyone. Due to human nature, we will make AI increasingly capable at an exponential pace. Eventually, our efforts to control them will become futile, and humans will no longer be the dominant species. Luckily, we are uniquely positioned in evolution to prevent this. We must merge with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. See app stores and the endless copy-cat games and apps, right down to the art style.
I sue people for copyright infringement frequently. It's rare that I have a defendant whose defense is "the internet is full of other infringers, why should I be held responsible?" Never have they won. This debate would go better if people didn't base it on assumptions they gleam from the world around them, but with regard to the actual law and not specious reasoning like "well, they did it too!! "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just BS. If people weren't replacing artists, there would be no need to prompt with "in the style of ___". are you honestly saying that only artistX is using the prompt "in the style of artistX"?
Making a picture in the style of an artist is not replacing them. I don't know why anyone could get that idea. I can sing in the style Janice Joplin, pretty sure I'm not replacing her and that nobody thinks I am.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
How many books can you write per second? How how many books per second can you read to influence and change your personal style? I don't think any person who actually has worked on anything creative in their life would compare a personal style to a model that can output in nearly any style at extreme speeds. And even if you're inspired by a specific author, invariably what happens is it becomes mix of yourself + thos…
I don't think anyone who has ever read a novel in their life would say that an AI can write literature at all, in any style.
> not a damn near-copy.
The obvious solution is to just treat it as if a human did it. If you did not know the authorship of the output and thought it was a human, would you still consider it copyright infringement? If yes, fair enough. If no, then i think is clearly not a "damn near-copy"