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

ChatGPT Images 2.0

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#691

Post by lionkor »

ap99 wrote: post #661
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

If I see art and get inspired by it, then paint my own thing and make millions do I owe my inspiration money?

Yes, you do owe the inspiration money if the result is close enough. Welcome to intellectual property laws!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#692

Post by lionkor »

barnabee wrote: post #630
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI. I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.

I have an alternative! Regulation. A government can simply regulate what is and isn't legal, and in most of the world, that's been what governments do.

I'm sure a country like the US, which is filled with lawyers, can come up with a couple laws, and find some goons to enforce it, that cannot possibly be that hard when other countries can figure it out too.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#693

Post by lxgr »

lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

> It's like open source, except you get shafted.

Do you mean copyleft? Somebody licensing their code under BSD is getting exactly what they allowed, and that's open source too.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#694

Post by lxgr »

sp_c wrote: post #636
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing! Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

> developers invented this and screwed themselves

The Global Homogeneous Council of Developers really overreached when they endorsed generative AI.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#695

Post by lionkor »

sp_c wrote: post #636
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing! Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

If you look at my comment history (don't, you'll fall over from boredom), you'll see I'm also against that. I've researched and selected specific licenses for all the code I've open sourced, which is quite a lot, and the fact that massive companies can just ignore that with absolutely zero I can do about it really pisses me off! But at least I still get paid. The same can't be said about artists.

Customers usually can figure out when a product is shitty software, but shitty art, well that's a bit harder for people to judge.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#696

Post by lxgr »

maplethorpe wrote: post #678
r5109 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rob Pike cares. In other places apart from HN there is more resistance. Perceived lack of resistance has multiple reasons: - Criticism of AI is discouraged or flagged on most industry owned platforms. - The loudest pro-AI software engineers work for companies that financially benefit from AI. - Many are silent because they fear reprisals. - Many software engineers lack agency and prefer to sit back and understand wha…

I've seen anti-AI comments here disappear within minutes of posting. I'm honestly surprised to see one at the top of this thread. What causes comments to disappear? Is that what flagging does?

I see properly argued positions, even if very anti-AI, hang around, but cheap tribalist takes usually get downvoted pretty quickly.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#697

Post by lionkor »

sandworm101 wrote: post #650
billynomates wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arent't the models trained on open source code though? In which case OpenAI et al should be following the licenses of the code on which they are trained.

Yup, but contributors to OSS have generally given away thier rights by contributing to the project per the license. So stealing from OS isnt as bad as stealing material still totally owned by an individual, such as a drawing scraped from a personal website. From a common FOSS contributor license... >>permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documenta…

The whole point of software licenses is that the copyright holder DOESN'T change. The author retains the rights, and LICENSES them. So, in fact, no rights are given away, they are licensed.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#699

Post by lionkor »

lxgr wrote: post #693
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

> It's like open source, except you get shafted. Do you mean copyleft? Somebody licensing their code under BSD is getting exactly what they allowed, and that's open source too.

No, they aren't. Clause 1 of the "modern" BSD license is

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

It's a license, not a free giveaway. You have to follow the terms of the license. Same for MIT, by the way; you have to retain the copyright notice.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#700

Post by lxgr »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #259
latexr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in return get a few measly icons (as if there weren’t literally thousands of them freely available already) and silly images for momentaneous amusement? What a rotten exchange.

I wonder what will happen to the entire legal system. It used to be fairly difficult to create convincing photos and videos. AI can probably fool most court judges now. Or the defense can refute legitimate evidence by saying “it’s AI / false”. How would that be refuted?

For better or worse, the only admissible evidence going forward will probably be either completely physical or originated in attestation-capable recording devices, i.e. something like a "forensics grade" camera with a signing key in trusted hardware issued by somebody deemed trustworthy.

Given the obvious personal safety upsell ("our phone/dashcam/... produces court-admissible evidence!"), I think we'll even see this in consumer devices before too long.

Post reply on HN