Comment on This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI

• vidarh@lemmy.stad.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  So what you are saying is open ai should get the public grants for artists to give to artists?

  No. What in the world gave you that idea? I’m saying artists or companies employing artists should get grants, just like is the case for a large number of grants now. I’m saying I’d like to see more of that to compensate for the effects being liberal about copyright would have.

  I understand it isn’t trained for anything, I have done training with them. The training leads to homogeneous outcomes. It had been studied as well. You can look it up.

  There is no “the training”. There are a huge range of models trained with different intent producing a wide variety in output to the point that some produces output that others will just plain refuse.

  Dall-e 3 still isn’t good enough to be competitive.

  Dall-E 3 isn’t anywhere near leading edge of diffusion models. It’s OpenAI playing catch up. Now, neither Midjourney or Firefly, nor any of the plethora of Stable Diffusion derived models are good enough to be competitive with everyone without significant effort either, today, but that is also entirely irrelevant. Diffusion models are two years old, and the pace of the progress have been staggering, to the point where we e.g. already have had plenty of book-covers and the like using them. Part of the reason for that is that you can continue training of a decent diffusion model even on a a somewhat beefy home machine and get a model that fits your needs better to an extent you can’t yet do with LLMs.

  Asking and crediting would go a long way to help fix the financial challenge. Because it is a start to adding a financial component. If you have to credit someone there becomes an obligation to that person.

  If there is a chance crediting someone will lead to a financial obligation, people will very quickly do the math on how cheaply they can buy works for hire instead. And the vast bulk of this is a one-off cost. You don’t need to continue adding images to teach the models already known thing, so the potential payout on the basis of creating some sort of obligation. Any plan for fixing the financial challenge that hinges on copyright is a lost cause from the start because unless it’s a pittance it creates an inherent incentive for AI companies to buy themselves out of that obligation instead. It won’t be expensive.

  source

  • kayrae_42@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I feel like you are one of the people who feel that AI is just going to be the future with no real problems to anyone who matters. We can’t stop it, we can’t regulate it in any way whatever; and people should just move out of the way, give up and if they can’t find a place in the new world, die already. Artists don’t matter, writers don’t matter and anyone impacted by this new system doesn’t matter. The algorithm is all that matters.

    Because I don’t use the exact correct wording, I use a short hand that is easier for my brain to remember, and you are pedantic, I can’t know anything about LLMs, machine learning or anything about this. Because I don’t say it has a training set of a large model of images that are tagged in specific ways that they can take out antagonistic images or images that create artifacts and refine the model in appropriate ways. You therefore throw out the idea that bias exists due to tagging systems.

    Honestly I don’t care if you don’t think I know anything about this. You are a stranger on the internet and this conversation has gone on too long.

    source

    • vidarh@lemmy.stad.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I feel like you are one of the people who feel that AI is just going to be the future with no real problems to anyone who matters. We can’t stop it, we can’t regulate it in any way whatever; and people should just move out of the way, give up and if they can’t find a place in the new world, die already. Artists don’t matter, writers don’t matter and anyone impacted by this new system doesn’t matter. The algorithm is all that matters.

      If I thought that, I wouldn’t have emphasised the need to sort out the funding issue, and argued that just regulation will be insufficient to solve it.

      I think it will cause a massive degree of upheaval. I don’t think regulation has any hope in hell of preventing upheaval significant enough that unless a solution is found to ensure better distribution of wealth it will cause violence and uprisings and governments to fall. Not necessarily in and of itself, but in accelerating a process of reducing the monetary value of labour.

      I can’t know anything about LLMs, machine learning or anything about this.

      I’ve not suggested anything of the sort.

      How you can interpret anything I’ve written as suggesting I don’t think there will be problems is beyond me.

      You therefore throw out the idea that bias exists due to tagging systems.

      I’ve done no such thing.

      source