PuddleCheese

6 ms·

1.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
These models can actually output images that can be extremely close to the material present in training models: - https://i.imgur.com/VikPFDT.png I also don't know if I would anthropomorphize ML to that degree. It&#x27
2.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
I feel there's a lot missing from this, and some terminology would require clarification (What constitutes "used"?). Generally speaking, this supposition skirts around the concept of monetizing from the work of others, and se
3.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Because someone may see a version of reality where people are incapable of benefiting from their own work does not mean that it's by any means a settled issue or indicative of "Reality". I doubt these conversations would exis
4.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Right. I doubt many people would disagree copyright REFORM is sorely lacking. Or are you suggesting that an artist is not allowed to benefit from their work because Disney has extended copyright?
5.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
If the artist is posting personal work, then it is covered by copyright automatically per the Berne Convention. Copyright exists to incentivize authors, artists, scientists, etc. to create original works by providing a temporary monopoly. I
6.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Copyright exists to incentivize authors, artists, scientists, etc. to create original works by providing a temporary monopoly. The arguments suggesting that people shouldn't benefit from their work on an individual level, and pointing
7.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Good points. I was actually just sitting in a AI Town Hall hosted by the Concept Art Association which had 2 US Copyright Lawyers who work at the USCO present, and their along similar lines, currently. Basically, like you specified, legal p
8.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
1. I like this style of work. I cannot make this style of work. I will pay this artist to produce this style of work. 2. I like this style of work. I cannot make this style of work. I will not pay the artist. I will instead take copyrighted
9.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
I mean, the alternative is arguably that artists become indentured servants to scraping/training models that benefit the people who are doing the scraping/training, at the arguable expense of the artist.
10.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Just because it's here doesn't mean it can't be modified going forward, and that we have to surrender to any and all ability to regulate anything. Fatalism can be attractive if you don't want to think about regulation, t
11.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Let's not conflate ethical inputs for full-out "undo" panic. I don't see many people saying that we need to "un-release" anything. What I do see is a want for ethical considerations for vulnerable parties be pa
12.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
The brain-computer metaphor is not a very good one, it's a pretty baseless appeal. Additionally, it's an argument that anthropomorphizes something which has no moral, legal, or ethical discretion. You do not actively train your br
13.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Artists don't generally try to OWN styles or prevent others from using them. They are the result of years of training, adapting, etc. They put their own spin on it. It's effectively a brand of that artist, and it's generally
14.
by PuddleCheese 4y ago
Re. Point 2: Artists are granted copyright for their work by default per the Berne Convention. These copyrighted works are then used without consent of the original author for these models. Additionally, the argument that you can't cop