Database of artists used to train Midjourney AI garners criticism

Post by omeid2 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:22 AM UTC

tavavex wrote: post #37

bsder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Completely unenforceable. Complete wrong. You just flip the defaults--something is AI unless you can prove otherwise. This is done already and has precedent. Producing porn requires that you keep artifacts demonstrating that who the performers were, that they were of age, etc. If you claim a work is not AI generated, you should have to produce some artifacts to back up that claim. In the case of a corporation, that…

I'm really struggling to conceptualize a world where every picture that's drawn must have a full notary log of how exactly it was produced, all for the sake of removing generative AI. Besides, it's not that easy of a problem - a lot of corporate artists are salaried workers, they don't get specified commissions with an attached bill per work, but are paid a salary so the company can ask them to draw whatever they nee…

Post by corethree » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:23 AM UTC

thurn wrote: post #3

One positive aspect of the status quo in the United States is that AI-generated images are not currently eligible for copyright. I think this is a great direction to go in, I highly doubt Wizards of the Coast or whoever is going to want their premium products to lose copyright protections, so they'll need to keep paying artists. I'd love for us to lean into this -- you can make all the AI art you want, but it automat…

Post by numpad0 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:24 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #28

kmeisthax wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to agree with this, but there's been research coming out of Google that has altered my opinion. Specifically, Google's gotten rather good at making AI spit out unaltered training set data[0]. This is only possible if the AI is remembering large portions of the original trained-on works, which would make the weights infringing. [0] In the most egregious case, they found that just asking ChatGPT to repeat a word…

> This is only possible if the AI is remembering large portions of the original trained-on works which is fine in my books. You could equivalently produce the same works from searching thru the digits of pi. The only enforcement that's needed is on the end user of the model - if they choose to produce the training set, they are violating copyright. The creator of the model _does not_ violate copyright merely by creat…

Post by vunderba » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:26 AM UTC

srackey wrote: post #4

I get why artists are trying to stop them, but this battle has already been lost. These tools have been out too long, open source models proliferate freely, and jurisdictions that don’t care about IP law will continue publishing these models. By the time it works it’s way through the courts the situation will be even worse.

Post by jwells89 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:27 AM UTC

geysersam wrote: post #10

srackey wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely unenforceable. How can you even tell if an image was made by AI? What if AI created an outline that was worked on by a human artist (or vice versa)? Who would the burden of proof be on? Steam has a “no AI art” policy, and it’s rapidly turning into a “no obvious AI art policy”. How could they tell?

Googled this because that was an astounding claim but Steam does in fact not have an anti ai art policy. They don't allow ai art produced by models trained on material that the model makers don't have copyright to. In practice that's a ban (currently) but in principle it isn't.