191–200 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not copying and reselling — it’s imitation. Copying is controlled by copyrights. And imitation isn’t controlled by anything. As for a company: a company is just a group of people acting together.
You need to copy the work to use it for AI training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I love using LLMs to generate pictures. I'd call myself rather creative, but absolutely useless in any artistic craft. Now, I can just describe any image I can imagine and get 90% accurate results May I ask what you use? I'm not yet even a paid subscriber to any of the models, because my company offer a corporate internal subscription chatbot and code integration that works well enough for what I've been doing so fa…
I was generating pictures to use for a little game I made with my six and ten year old kids. They were so excited to see us go from idea to execution so quickly, they were laughing and we had a ton of fun. The only thing that disappointed me was I got throttled. We’d need to pay for API image gen to get it even faster. I made a logo for an internal product that wouldn’t have had a logo otherwise at our company. I als…
There is circumstantial evidence out there that 4o image manipulation isn't done within the 4o image generator in one shot but is a workflow done by an agentic system. Meaning this, user inputs prompt "create an image with no elephants in the room" > prompt goes to an llm which preprocesses the human prompt > outputs a a prompt that it knows works withing this image generator well > create an image of a room > and th…
I thought this was obvious? At least from the first time (and only time) I used it, you can clearly see that it's not just creating one image based on the prompt, but instead it first creates a canvas for everything to fit into, then it generates piece by piece, with some coordinator deciding the workflow.
Don't think we need evidence either way when it's so obvious from using it and what you can see while it generates the "collage" of images.
This is a before/after moment for image generation. A simple example is the background images on a ton of (mediocre) music youtube channels. They almost all use AI generated images that are full of nonsense the closer you look. Jazz channels will feature coffee shops with garbled text on the menu and furniture blending together. I bet all of that disappears over the next few months. On another note, and perhaps other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the idea, but I feel like I have to say that I’ve got a pretty solid idea of what the total perspective vortex would look like for someone being subjected to it. When I first read the books I immediately had a visual and that has never changed when I’ve read them again (and again…). I’m not sure what that says about either of us, but I would say that your definitive “quite hard to visualise” statement is very…
Vortex may be not so much but there are other hard to visualize things. I am on the third book, and I have no idea what Beeblebrox's two heads look like. Second head is often mentioned in passing. Sometimes its mentioned as its always there, other times it feels like its just pops out of somewhere, otherwise, it's like it doesn't exist. There is the scene when they see themselves on the beach on first rescue by the s…
I don’t know if the “layout” of the heads is mentioned or not in the books - I’d have to go back and check - but it’s often quite jarring when a book becomes a movie and doesn’t match my inner vision (and how incredibly unthoughtful of them, to boot).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love using LLMs to generate pictures. I'd call myself rather creative, but absolutely useless in any artistic craft. Now, I can just describe any image I can imagine and get 90% accurate results, which is good enough for the presentations I hold, online pet projects (created a squirrel-themed online math-learning game for which I previously would have needed a designer to create squirrel highschool themed imagery)…
If you use this technology, you're actively harming creative labor.
If a classroom of 14 year olds are making a game in their computer science class, and they use AI to make placeholder images... Was a real artist harmed?
The teacher certainly cant afford to pay artists to provide content for all the students games, and most students can't afford to hire an artist either.. they perhaps can't even legally do it, if the artist requires a contract... they are underage in most countries to sign a contract.
This technology gives the kids a lot more freedom than a pre-packaged asset library, and can encourage more engagement with the course content, leading to more people interested in creative-employing pursuits.
So, I think this technology can create a new generation of creative individuals, and statements about the blanket harm need to be qualified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's consensus around that idea. Lots of people (myself included) feel that copyright is already vastly overreaching, and that AI represents forward progress for the proliferation of art in society (its crap today, but digital cameras were crap in 2007 and look where they are now). Its also not clear for example that Studio Ghibli lost by having their art style plastered all over the internet. I went…
Copyright is a logical consequence of property rights. I'd agree that property rights hold back industry and trade but if you want to abolish property rights, you first have to decommodify the essentials like food, housing, public infrastructure and healthcare, because unleashing the market when it has control over all of these is going to have some very undesirable consequences.
> He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
The term "intellectual property" is an attempt to conflate these things, to justify net-destructive money grabs like retroactive copyright term extensions, because traditional property rights don't expire but copyrights explicitly and intentionally do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's consensus around that idea. Lots of people (myself included) feel that copyright is already vastly overreaching, and that AI represents forward progress for the proliferation of art in society (its crap today, but digital cameras were crap in 2007 and look where they are now). Its also not clear for example that Studio Ghibli lost by having their art style plastered all over the internet. I went…
> Its also not clear for example that Studio Ghibli lost by having their art style plastered all over the internet. I went home and watched a Ghibli film that week, as I'm sure many others did as well. Their revenue is probably up quite a bit right now? This sounds like a rewording of "You won't get paid, but this is a great opportunity for you because you'll get exposure".
Studio Ghibli on the other hand had exposure to millions of people (maybe hundreds of millions), and probably >5% of those were potential customers.
So yes, being paid in exposure makes sense, if the exposure is actually worth what the art is worth. But most people offering to pay in exposure are overvaluing their exposure by 100x or more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love using LLMs to generate pictures. I'd call myself rather creative, but absolutely useless in any artistic craft. Now, I can just describe any image I can imagine and get 90% accurate results, which is good enough for the presentations I hold, online pet projects (created a squirrel-themed online math-learning game for which I previously would have needed a designer to create squirrel highschool themed imagery)…
If you use this technology, you're actively harming creative labor.
There is circumstantial evidence out there that 4o image manipulation isn't done within the 4o image generator in one shot but is a workflow done by an agentic system. Meaning this, user inputs prompt "create an image with no elephants in the room" > prompt goes to an llm which preprocesses the human prompt > outputs a a prompt that it knows works withing this image generator well > create an image of a room > and th…
Unconvinced by that tbh. This could simply be a bias with the encoder/decoder or the model itself, many image generation models showed behaviour like this. Also unsure why a sepia filter would always be applied if it was a workflow, what's the point of this?
Personally, I don't believe this is just an agentic workflow. Agentic workflows can't really do anything a human couln't do manually, they just make the process much faster. I spent 2 years working with image models, specifically around controllability of the output, and there is just no way of getting this kind of edits with a regular diffusion model just through smarter prompting or other tricks. So I don't see how an agentic workflow would help.
I think you can only get there via a true multimodal model.