Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators

• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah, no. There’s a difference between posting your work for someone to enjoy, and posting it to be used in a commercial enterprise with no recompense to you.

  source

  • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How are you going to stop that lol it’s ridiculous. Would you stop a corporate suit from viewing your painting because they might learn how to make a similar one? It’s makes absolutely zero sense and I can’t believe delulus online are failing to comprehend such simple concept of “computers being able to learn”.

    source

    • yuki2501@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Ah yes, just because lockpickers can enter a house suddenly everyone’s allowed to break and enter. 🙄

      source

      • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        What a terrible analogy for learning 🙄

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Computers can’t learn. I’m really tired of seeing this idea paraded around.

      You’re clearly showing your ignorance here. Computers do not learn, they create statistical models based on input data.

      A human seeing a piece of art and being inspired isn’t comparable to a machine reducing that to 1’s and 0’s and then adjusting weights in a table somewhere. It does not “understand” the concept, nor did it “learn” about a new piece of art.

      Enforcement is simple. Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright against every artist who’s art was used illegally to train the model. If the copyright holders of all the training data are compensated and have opt-in agreed to be used for training then, and only then would the output of the model be able to be used.

      source

      • cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        they create statistical models based on input data.

        Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright

        There’s no copyright violation, you said it yourself, any output is just the result of a statistical model and the original art would be under fair use derivative work (If it falls under copyright at all)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s literally in the name. Machine learning. Ignorance is not an excuse.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Wait until you find out how human artists learn.

    source

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And you don’t see how those two things are different?

      source

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And you don’t see how those two things are similar?

        source
    • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They learn completely different from an AI model, considering an AI model cannot learn

      source

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Prove it.

        source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Are you actually suggesting that if I post a drawing of a dog, Disney should be allowed to use it in a movie and not compensate me?

  source

  • Delta_V@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Everyone should be assumed to be able to look at it, learn from it, and add your style to their artistic toolbox. That’s an intrinsic property of all art. When you put it on display, don’t be surprised or outraged when people or AIs look at it.

    source

    • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      AI does not learn and transform something like a human does. I have no problem with human artists taking inspiration, I do have a problem with art being reduced to a soulless generation that requires stealing real artists work to create something that isn’t original.

      source

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        1. you don’t know how humans learn and transform something

        2. regardless, it does learn and transform something

        source
      • Delta_V@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        AI does not learn and transform something like a human does.

        But they do learn. How human-like that learning may be isn’t relevant. A parrot learns to talk differently than a human does too, but African greys can still hold a conversation. Likewise, when an AI learns how to make art by studying what others have made, they may not do it in exactly the same way a human does it, but the products of the process are their own creations just as much as the creations of humans artists that parrot other human artists styles and techniques.

        source
  • cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ofc not, that’s way different, that’s beyond the use of public use.

    If I browse to your Instagram, look at some of your art, record some numbers about it, observe your style and then leave that’s perfectly fine right? If I then took my numbers and observations from your art and everybody else’s that I looked and merged them together to make my own style that would also be fine right? Well that’s AI, that’s all it does on a simple level

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But they are still profiting off of it. Dall-E doesn’t make images out of the kindness of OpenAI’s heart. They’re a for-profit company. That really doesn’t make it different from Disney, does it?

      source

      • cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Sure, Dall-E has a profit motive, but then what about all the open source models that are trained on the same or similar data and artworks?

        source

        • -> View More Comments