401–410 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. They are just taking a sample from a generated latent space, just like taking a photo of something doesn't make you an artist.
So, there is no artists in, for example, street photography? Picture must be altered to become art, or staged? Was it irony? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflated is not an apt descriptor of artist wages, those are known to be low.
If you're independent selling paintings, sure. Designing packaging or something commercial? 4 hours of work a week for nearly 6 figures. I know a couple graphic designers and they don't do shit for what they're paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Video game DRM completely prevents people without a license/key to unlock it from accessing the game at all.
So, do you want to define drm by intent or technical implementation? I'm doing the former, but it sounds like you want to do the latter. Also keep in mind that legalese doesn't necessarily care about the exact encryption technique to be deployed either.
This is effectively the equivalent of someone doing really crappy image processing. As other commenters have mentioned, it does alter how images look to humans as well as machines, and it can be “mitigated” through additional processing techniques.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies. Why? That certainly isn't a right spelled out in either patents or copyrights, both of which are supposed to support the development of arts and technology, not hinder it. If I discover a new mathematical formula, musical scale, or whatnot, should I be able to prevent others from learning about it?
It’s called a license and you can make it almost anything. It doesn’t even need to be spelled out, it can be verbal: “no, I won’t let you have it” It’s yours. That’s literally what copyright is there to enforce.
If I buy your painting, you can stop me from making copies and selling them to other people, but you can't stop me from selling my original copy to whomever I want, nor could you stop me from painting little dinosaurs all over it and hanging it in my hallway.
That means that if I buy your painting, I'm also free to study it and learn from it in whichever way I please. Studying something is not copying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. They are just taking a sample from a generated latent space, just like taking a photo of something doesn't make you an artist.
So, there is no artists in, for example, street photography? Picture must be altered to become art, or staged? Was it irony? :)
"A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
great comment! imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your style. but it's still different than some computer model "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other peoples talent. i get that this is cynical and does…
Like 99.9% of the art the common people care about is Darth Vader and Taylor Swift and other pop culture stuff like that. These people literally don’t care what your definition of what is and isn’t art is, or how it’s made, they just want a lock screen wallpaper of themselves fighting against Thanos on top of a volcano. The argument of “what is art” has been an academic conversation largely ignored by the people actu…
But many big players do want to use this commercially and that's where a lot of these lines start to form. No matter how lawsuits go you will probably still be able to find some LLM to make Thanos fighting a volcano. It's just a matter of how/if companies can profit from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is not economically viable for you to be ethical, then you do not deserve economic success. Anyone arguing against this technology following the line of reasoning you present is operating in adverse to the good of society. Especially if their only motive is economic viability.
I feel like you read my comment and interpreted it in exactly the opposite way it was intended because I agree with you, and you're making the same point I was trying to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I disagree. There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work. The way societies work is that the members of the society contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with lots of excess production may at times choose to allow creative works to be monetized. Societies without much surplus are extremely unlikely to…
> There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work. What does that have to do with rivalry? This doesn't dispute the idea that AI is indeed competing with artists. You're just saying artists don't deserve to get paid. Regardless, some artists will give up but some will simply be more careful with where and how they post the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, do you want to define drm by intent or technical implementation? I'm doing the former, but it sounds like you want to do the latter. Also keep in mind that legalese doesn't necessarily care about the exact encryption technique to be deployed either.
Both. Changing an image is done all the time prior to publishing them. In fact, no image you ever see on the internet is a raw sensor output. They are all modified in some manner. The images processed using this method look the same to every person and computer that views them. That’s very different from DRM which encrypts things and prevents access to unprivileged users. This is effectively the equivalent of someone…
Well you can call it a captcha if you want. The point here is to make it harder to access for bots (but not impossible) while inconveniencing honest actors in the process. It doesn't sound like there's a straightforward answer to "are captchas DRM" either.
Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology when it is a non-issue to any model by simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use.
I think people 100% have the right to use this on their images, but: > simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use Currently it's generally infeasible to obtain licenses at the required scale. When attempting to develop a model that can describe photos for visually impaired users, I had even tried to reach out to obtain a license from Getty. They repeatedly told me that they don't license images fo…
However - and this is a big however - I don't believe it deserves the legal protection to be used for profit.
I am of the opinion that if you train your model on data that you do not hold the rights for, your usage should be handled similarly to most fair use laws. It's fine to use it for your personal projects, for research and education, etc. but it is not OK to use it for commercial endeavors.