11–20 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent seeking by owners of AI machines is OK, but not by copyright owners?
I think creating art in the style of an artist is well covered by Fair Use.
> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…
> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…
This reminds me of the backlash against the wacom community on deviantart in the early days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent seeking by owners of AI machines is OK, but not by copyright owners?
Yes. Abolish all copyright. Are we hackers or not?
This is really Venture Capital News, and accordingly they've appropriated the whole "hacker" image in an attempt at authenticity.
> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…
It would be a spectacularly shitty world where IP protection is only granted to entities with a legal budget that eclipses the GDP of Antigua, and not to smaller independent creators. The ends of having an useful model like stable diffusion doesn't really justify just ignoring the IP rights of tens of thousands of creators who were already having a pretty rough time making ends meet. That's just a shitty thing to do.
Copyright law isn't friendly to small creators, and big creators use it as a cudgel with absolutely no consequences.
> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…
So many artists styles could have gone viral and actually bring those artists some work from the people who tried the AI commercially and got results that weren't completely satisfactory. Now barely anyone will ever have any contact with their art (relatively speaking vs scenario of virality).
Basically the only people who win are the lawyers and handful of artists that were mislead by lawyers primitive argumentation. Everybody else looses. First and foremost artists and art lovers but also AI researchers and hardware manufacturers.
This didn't make any sense to me. Without the curated training data (images) how are they making the models?
No matter what, putting images into your machine then selling the output generated with them and not compensating the original creators is going to be seen as problematic. Machines aren't people.
> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…
These are orthogonal issues at this point.
The one concern I do have is that the “lawyer nonsense” (read: AI companies playing fast and loose with current laws) will stack the regulatory deck against AI technology unnecessarily - essentially because of an unforced error that brings negative attention to the technology.
Put another way, these companies are asking to have a spotlight put on them by being so flippant about copyright and ethics issues. This spotlight could have been avoided with better behavior, and the tech would still appear magical and remain one of the most impactful jumps in tech in decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent seeking by owners of AI machines is OK, but not by copyright owners?
I think creating art in the style of an artist is well covered by Fair Use.