• sorrybookbroke
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok that’s entirely disingenuous. You can make an AI model open source where you get real permission from artists instead of taking their work without permission and using it to replace them.

    It’s entirely possible. Will the large orgs have more resources to collect art? No shit, yeah, and they’ll have better PCs to train on too. No matter what, allowed to take from hard working small artists while attempting to make them irrelevant or not, the big corps will always have a heads up here.

    Unless, like so many other projects, an extremely complicated system benefits from collaborative work inside an open environment. Shocking, I know, working on merit over money.

    You don’t want a conversation though you just want “epic dunks”

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The amount of training data needed for a model is so huge that you’d have to use only artwork that was preemptively licensed for that purpose. Individually asking artists for permission to use their work would be far too expensive even if they all agreed to let you use their work for free.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And why is that a problem?

        Artists should have control over their work. It’s not my problem that a big company vs a small company is stealing my work, I don’t want either of them to.

        I no longer post anything online that I create cause I’d rather nobody see it than it be stolen for AI training.

      • sorrybookbroke
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is correct, though there could be campaigns to collect art otherwise. There are plenty of artists in the open source world who could do it, and asking individuals to signal boost these calls to action can get more push. Once more, no matter what, big corps will always have more monitary resources. The power of open source is volunteer manpower and passion. Even if these weren’t the case, the moral argument still stands in using a persons work to replace them without permission.

        Regardless of that even, what this will do is cause stagnation in the art field if not protected. Nobodies going to share their art, their method, or their ideas freely in a world where doing so allows a massive corp to take it freely without permission, thus replacing them. This kills ideas of open distribution of art and art information. It will become hidden, and new ideas, new art, will not be available to view.

        Allowing people to take without permission will only ever hurt the small artists. Disney will always be able to just “take” any art they make.

        Also, you’re not entirely correct on that. Models made for specific purposes don’t actually need the absurd amount generalist models need. However in the context of current expectations yeah, you’re right on quantity.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Massive corps don’t need to use the output of “little artists”, they have their own massive repositories of works they own or license that they can train AIs on.

          The small artists won’t be able to use those AIs, though. Those AIs will belong to Disney or Getty Images, and if they deign to allow others to use them it’ll be through paywalls and filters and onerous licensing terms. The small artists would only be able to use open models freely.

          This insistence on AIs being prohibited from learning from otherwise public images is going to be a phyrric victory if it ever comes to pass.

          • sorrybookbroke
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do they do it now then? They do need this. They need absurd amounts of tagged images of varying quality and style. No, their own repositories are nowhere near enough for general models. They require the small artists. Many artists, small or large, will simply refuse to license to disney too.

            Allowing them to take from the smaller artists does not help the situation either. They now simply have more data, which they can run through their better equiped systems, quicker than anyone else can do. This helps the big corps while doing little for us small devs.

            On the matter of these being “otherwise public images” being what they are trained on, can you not see this destroying this large public repository of information? No new work made by people who have unique ideas will be made public. Why would they? if they do, disney and getty images can now out compete them. This will cause the currently massive resource of images, information, and general art to become hidden. To become no-longer public. This stagnates art where it is now. Only that which people are OK with AI taking will be shared, becouse it will be. We get the same outcome either way, save for that already shared, the only difference is that nobody is able to enjoy the art being made which the artists don’t want training AI.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s convenient to be able to use whatever publicly available images you want for training, but it’s not necessary. Adobe proved this with their Firefly AI.

              • sorrybookbroke
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Their text to image is nowhere near the abilities of other tools, and the rest are specialized tools.

                It’s convenient, yes, but without it these models are much more limited.

                Even of it was, my other points which you’ve ignored still stand

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’ll be a massive victory for artists and a failure for all the sham AI prompt generators.

            There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.

              It destroys the open source/hobbyist sector. The only AIs that would be available for artists to use would be corporate-controlled, paywalled, and filtered. That’s a pretty huge downside.

              • BURN@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not my problem

                Art is not generated by machines. Nothing of value is lost.

                  • BURN@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nothing of value is lost. Generative AI does not create anything new.

                    It’s exclusively a benefit to artists