121–130 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure you as the 331st user (surely we're under counting here?) will be able to realize your vision and rise above the sea of people making statistically average, derivative noise, using the same models as everyone else.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does this actually happen at large scale Yes? Go to any convention center. Go commission a piece of art on the internet. It is almost all infringing "fan art". > I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art Its not some rando person doing this stuff for a hobby. Instead, I am talking about the entire industry. All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately…
> All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious. Most of the gaming/media/comic conventions I have been to have involved game/media/comic artists selling their own work, not people selling fan art. In fact, the presence of the original artists selling copies of their original works is generally a big draw for the convention. Maybe we go to different conventions or som…
Nobody is suing because few people have the resources to sue anyone, yes, but people are absolutely upset about all the AI art that is now on the internet.
Much of which is entirely non commercial, in the same way that any other piece of online fan art is.
But hey sure, if your position is that almost all of the online AI art stuff is totally fine (it's mostly all non commercial), then great. You support almost all AI art.
So I guess that means that both fan art and AI art are basically the same anyway, using that same definition of non commercial, which was my entire point.
Also, it doesn't really matter if stable diffusion, or 1 or 2 other big companies go out of business at this point.
Their models are already available for anyone to use, and other people are training them even now.
A couple companies being sued doesn't stop any of this technology even a little bit, because lots of amazing models are available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, with the status quo, there's no license required to train on the greatest works of art from centuries past. I recognize some of the concerns about AI but I don't think pinning hopes on copyright law will deliver anything remotely resembling a remedy to the problems you bring up.
Are you talking about training a human or training an artist? Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference.
Neither: I am talking about training a machine learning model. Unless that's what you meant by "artist"?
> Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference.
You may have misunderstood my comment. My comment was stating that there's only a portion of human art - the most recent decades of works - which are protected by a copyright. Models like Stable Diffusion could be re-trained instead on centuries of artworks and not infringe at all. So the problem described as "AI powered corporations to front-run the entire human race and sell everything we think back to us" - this problem is here regardless of whether licenses were purchased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tricky part is that the ongoing training of ever-more-interesting generative AI *depends* on the ongoing labor of artists. Proponents of the current economic model like to frame the artist rejection of AI as an obvious case of Luddism. Of course the artists reject this, it threatens their economic station! And: it's not even wrong. But, it is a high modernist foible: at some point the raw resource is fully exploi…
>ongoing training of even-more-interesting generative AI depends on the ongoing labor of artists. What does that mean? That you need artist to produce "even-more-interesting" art to train new iterations of generative AI? Could you point out some of these superfresh new art artist are doing that are completely different than things already done to exhaustion in the 1970s (other than anime)? I don't think you need arti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you talking about training a human or training an artist? Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference.
> Are you talking about training a human or training an artist? Neither: I am talking about training a machine learning model. Unless that's what you meant by "artist"? > Downloading copyrighted data at huge scales to use in your commercial software product is pretty substantially different than an art student studying a reference. You may have misunderstood my comment. My comment was stating that there's only a port…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just Forbes. Read about him on Wikipedia.
>However, according to him, he did not attend his graduation ceremony to receive his degrees, and therefore, he does not technically possess a BA or an MA. Oh wow, he's probably lying about his education.