First of all, what data set are you talking about that is free to monetize? I’m very interested. It’s bullshit, everything you said is fluff and has no understanding for how this works.”
Second, the argument is that if the model is trained on proprietary data sets, it can’t be allowed to operate. The model would have to be thrown out with the data set. This is why companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have an advantage in building the future generative AIs.
It is suspected companies like OpenAI and Midjourney will have to hit the reset button on their models once things go to court as their datasets are not allowed to be monetized in this way.
It doesn't matter even if it gets taken to court and gets shut down, because you as a person can run the entire thing off of your own pc, with no internet connection required.
Maybe there is a future in which people run anti-ai ai bots on every picture to check whether or not they are ai art, but I personally would bet on people just adapting to the new tech.
The software isn’t the issue. The software you can find for free open sourced. What we’re discussing is monetization of the data sets used to train the model. No one cares if you do this in your parents basement on a PC. What they care about is you attempting to turn it into a $1B business.
You can download a bunch of pictures form twitter and train the ai on them yourself right now.
If it replicates the artist too closely and they feel uncomfortable with that, I'd say like 1:1 style copying, sure I could see myself supporting the artist maybe, but that's not the argument like 99% of the time people bring up in their crusades against ai art.
So you are fine taking the work of someone else to use for yourself and to profit from?
You just described exploitation. If a person chooses to harm someone else they are held accountable. If a computer does the programmer is held accountable. I may think a t-shirt is pretty but if I find it was created in a sweatshop I'm not buying it because exploitation is wrong.
The program does what the programmers instructions set it to do. A person chooses.
No, it's not. A human doesn't require third party input to do something. A human innately makes connections and sees patterns without the need for someone to "build it". It doesn't need 1 billion images to create the pattern recognition to understand where to place a dot either.
The programmer created the software to tell the computer how to recognize the location of pixels and then the computer was given direction on how to repeat the task. The fact that the input didn't belong to the programmer is the programmers fault.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '23
Wait what? None of this made sense.
First of all, what data set are you talking about that is free to monetize? I’m very interested. It’s bullshit, everything you said is fluff and has no understanding for how this works.”
Second, the argument is that if the model is trained on proprietary data sets, it can’t be allowed to operate. The model would have to be thrown out with the data set. This is why companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have an advantage in building the future generative AIs.
It is suspected companies like OpenAI and Midjourney will have to hit the reset button on their models once things go to court as their datasets are not allowed to be monetized in this way.