451–460 of 710 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, sadly those millions of people don’t matter in the grand scheme of things and were never going to profit off their work long term
What a bummer of a thing to say. Those millions/billions of people matter a great deal.
For what it’s worth I never use midjourney or dalle or any of the commercial closed systems that steal from artists but I know I can’t stop the masses from going there and inputting “give me pretty picture in style x”
[flagged]
This seems to introduce levels of artifacts that many artists would find unacceptable: https://twitter.com/sini4ka111/status/1748378223291912567 The rumblings I'm hearing are that this a) barely works with last-gen training processes b) does not work at all with more modern training processes (GPT-4V, LLaVA, even BLIP2 labelling [1]) and c) would not be especially challenging to mitigate against even should it become…
[flagged]
Why is it my responsibility to ensure my data doesn’t inadvertently harm your model that I have zero knowledge of?
This seems to introduce levels of artifacts that many artists would find unacceptable: https://twitter.com/sini4ka111/status/1748378223291912567 The rumblings I'm hearing are that this a) barely works with last-gen training processes b) does not work at all with more modern training processes (GPT-4V, LLaVA, even BLIP2 labelling [1]) and c) would not be especially challenging to mitigate against even should it become…
The artifacts are a non-issue. It's intended images with nightshade are intended to be silently scrapped and avoid human filtering.
According to which authority?
[flagged]
I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?
Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that gray area is where things do get dicey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?
>This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Because this isn’t simple law. It feels like simple infringement, but there’s no actual copying going on. You can’t open up the database and find a given duplicate of a work. Instead you have some abstraction of what it takes to get to a given work. Also it’s important to point out that nothing in the law is sure. A good lawyer, a sympathetic judge,…
So distributing a zip file of a copyrighted work subverts the copyright?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.
People who use generative AI in their processes are not artists.
Am I no longer a software engineer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My issue with this line of argument is that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. It’s fine to compare how humans do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and software logic. First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the sa…
We are machines. We just haven't evenly accepted it yet. Our biology is mechanical, and lay people don't possess an intuition about this. Unless you've studied molecular biology and biochemistry, it's not something that you can easily grasp. Our inventions are mechanical, too, and they're reaching increasing levels of sophistication. At some point we'll meet in the middle.