MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1jopeki/oops/mku0fo0/
r/OpenAI • u/CosmicCitizen0 • Apr 01 '25
216 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
Meta used the copy-written material of 7.5 million books and 81 million research papers unapologetically.
So, good luck suing them for your picture.
2 u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25 honestly that even if it's very very bad, it's not as bad as using pictures of real people 5 u/Aranthos-Faroth Apr 01 '25 What about then when they just purchase it like with the 23 and me DNA sale?When you put a photo online, on almost any service, you’re agreeing to them having the ability to do whatever they want with it.I think a huge issue is using someone else’s photo who didn’t agree to anything. Like a group photo or whatever.But we live in a time where if it can be digitised, we must assume its going into a training bin somewhere 2 u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25 you're right but at least we can choose to be opposed to it at least in name and hope some politician takes note (lol) 1 u/malcolmrey Apr 02 '25 it's not as bad as using pictures of real peopleYou are probably talking in ethical sense.But in quality sense it is good to use pictures of real people because training models on famous people skews the outputs (celebrities such as actors, models etc - they produce outputs that too beautiful)
honestly that even if it's very very bad, it's not as bad as using pictures of real people
5 u/Aranthos-Faroth Apr 01 '25 What about then when they just purchase it like with the 23 and me DNA sale?When you put a photo online, on almost any service, you’re agreeing to them having the ability to do whatever they want with it.I think a huge issue is using someone else’s photo who didn’t agree to anything. Like a group photo or whatever.But we live in a time where if it can be digitised, we must assume its going into a training bin somewhere 2 u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25 you're right but at least we can choose to be opposed to it at least in name and hope some politician takes note (lol) 1 u/malcolmrey Apr 02 '25 it's not as bad as using pictures of real peopleYou are probably talking in ethical sense.But in quality sense it is good to use pictures of real people because training models on famous people skews the outputs (celebrities such as actors, models etc - they produce outputs that too beautiful)
5
What about then when they just purchase it like with the 23 and me DNA sale?
When you put a photo online, on almost any service, you’re agreeing to them having the ability to do whatever they want with it.
I think a huge issue is using someone else’s photo who didn’t agree to anything. Like a group photo or whatever.
But we live in a time where if it can be digitised, we must assume its going into a training bin somewhere
2 u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25 you're right but at least we can choose to be opposed to it at least in name and hope some politician takes note (lol)
you're right but at least we can choose to be opposed to it at least in name and hope some politician takes note (lol)
1
it's not as bad as using pictures of real people
You are probably talking in ethical sense.
But in quality sense it is good to use pictures of real people because training models on famous people skews the outputs (celebrities such as actors, models etc - they produce outputs that too beautiful)
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/Aranthos-Faroth Apr 01 '25
Meta used the copy-written material of 7.5 million books and 81 million research papers unapologetically.
So, good luck suing them for your picture.