[hehdhdhkf]

Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties.

These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work.

If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing.

They either don’t understand how it works or they are just upset that a computer can make art as good as (or better than) they can in a fraction of the time.

All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck, but it would be great if we all could try to understand reality first.

[EamonnMR]

> Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data?

More pointedly, how do I keep my GPL'd code from spewing, license free, out of CodePilot?

[tadfisher]

I think that's the point of this blog post: it doesn't matter if the inputs are copyrighted, it matters if the output is infringing. It appears to be almost impossible to directly recreate a source image with SD, but it seems Copilot tends to produce a single input as its output, verbatim. Copilot isn't doing "synthesis" as does SD, it's acting more like a search engine.

[yencabulator]

> If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing.

Try making a comic book with a character that looks like Mickey Mouse and see how well that goes.

[dns_snek]

Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright?

> All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck

This is not a given. It's up to us and the copyright law. Real original work should be compensated appropriately unless you're proposing that we accelerate deployment of universal basic income and completely abolish copyright law.

I have a feeling you might not like the violent outcome if you effectively strip original creators of their copyright, give corporations the right to effectively generate infinite profit off the backs of their work and tell the creators (and other people whose jobs will be automated away) to pound sand when they ask how they're supposed to pay rent from now on.

[pixl97]

Do you want to live in a future where anything 'original' an artist creates has now blocked anyone else on the planet for the next 99 years and you must pay them royalties? Because we already have Disney now and they suck quite a bit.

I honestly want to live in a world where this 'worrying about paying for rent' is not a problem that we're concerned with, and a world with AI that can create and make we far more apt to achieve that than with the status quo we've been following so far.

[CWuestefeld]

> a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style

This argument is assuming its own conclusion, that such a situation must be bad. But I don't think that's necessarily true.

If somebody can make 1000 different derivatives that the public likes as much as the originals, then it must be that in whatever criteria the public is interested in, these works are just as good. If they were inferior, the public wouldn't accept them as substitutes. The fact that they are (hypothetically) accepted indicates that the public is OK with them.

For my own personal aesthetics, I would like to think that today's popular music, which is written by some combination of algorithm and committee, and produced through tools that correct the performance via autotune, quantization, etc., is inferior to the music that I enjoy. But given that the public seems to like this music (and indeed, they like music generated this way even though it's not even cheaper for them to consume) seems to say that we as a society are getting what they want, and who am I to put a normative judgment on that?

[letmevoteplease]

The technology is coming one way or another. You can stop Stability AI but you can't stop OpenAI (Microsoft) or Google, who can afford to license training data from companies like Shutterstock. A restrictive interpretation of copyright law will just keep it in the hands of the biggest corporations.

[hdjdnnhddddd]

You mean the artists who use similar brushes in photoshop and don’t know how to paint and musicians who use logic, auto tune, loop samples and don’t know how to play an instrument?

Copyright what? Someone’s brain? You can copyright a specific work or a character, but you actually want to live in a world where someone can copyright the color red with a dark black line, or the G# chord?

Real artists are going to art, and musicians are going to make music. People who do creative work do it to express themselves, their point of view or to say something.

Corporate art exist to sell you soda - I am not sure your argument lands quite like you want it to.

I am glad this is going to court, because, with my understand of how neural nets work, I fail to see how any copyright is being infringed.

[epistemer]

This is the same stupid argument that Mp3 will destroy music instead of embracing the new marketing opportunities it represents.

IMO an artist that wants their name out of the dataset is a moron. In the end , people copying an artist style over and over will just send the price of originals through the roof. This is completely obvious.

[thereisnospork]

> Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright?

Yes, much in the same way that I am glad I live in a future where scribes aren't required to put text on paper: There is a massive amount of efficiency to be gained and enjoyment to reap for everyone who doesn't happen to be employed as an artist.

[williamcotton]

> Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright?

My creative output per minute has probably increased threefold in the last few months from incorporating these tools into my workflow. What I've been making doesn't look or sound like anything that anyone else is making.

You're going to have a really hard time using Stable Diffusion to make quirky cartoon daily desk calendars in the style of plaintiff Sarah Anderson. You're going to have a much better time if you think more like a Creative Director and have less of an idea ahead of time of what the tool is going to give you... so you can iterate, much like a painter iterates while working.

These tools require the creative agency from the artist who is using them in order to produce things that people find interesting, entertaining, valuable or otherwise meaningful so I really don't see a "corporation goes brrrrrr" doing anything other than flooding the lowest-common denominator content feed pipes on the internet contrasted with the highest quality art using these tools in incredibly transformative ways.

[nickthegreek]

Just an FYI, many artists create with no financial incentive.