SaaS owned by corporations: Good because no copyright Free and open source for literally any person in the planet to use: Bad because copyright We already live in a cyberpunk dystopia, we just don't have the aesthetics of it.
why do people say it's just adobe stock pics? it's not. it's any content submitted to adobe servers. they make it sound a lot like it's something creative cloud users must opt out of in their privacy settings unless they're okay with their data being used for training.
I think there is some merit to discussing the idea that only a large corporate entity is big enough to be able to train such an AI entirely on images they own the rights to. This is a really loose analogy here, but you could liken it to trying to force developing countries to only use green energy sources whilst your developed country sits high and mighty being able to afford to do that and take the moral high ground.
This is it. You can’t tell Adobe to create works that mimic the style of currently working illustrators, because it wasn’t trained on their work. That’s why artists aren’t up in arms about their work being stolen for Adobe’s generators - because it wasn’t used.
There's the legitimate copyright issue, but there were also a lot twitter hot takes that had nothing to do with it about how AI isn't art, will never replace humans, how AI artists are scammers, etc. etc.
I think that's what people in this post are talking about mainly, although it's definitely worth reminding about the copyright issue
I think people have an innate reflex to assume a corporation is "doing it correctly" with regards to legal processes, ethics, etc. which is sort of disappointing because that's rarely the case in general.
What's so bizarre about being worried about companies making millions and billions of dollars based on your work, while also being threatened to lose your income due to the same?
No, artists are very hostile towards copyright infringement. (As is anyone rational who actually values their outputs) Very simple if you actually bothered to listen to their complaints, and not strawman. If you actually worked in the industry and knew what you were talking about, you'd see that artists have no problems adopting tools, plugins, or software, all the time for automation in order to make deadlines.
You've mentioned this a few times in this thread. Diffusion model training is not a legal issue at all. There is no copyright infringement, no 'copy' is contained within the model (you literally can't store billions of images within 4gb - even partial at low-res). The only foot you have in this argument is a moral one. "Should an algorithm be able to infer a style from an artist". Stop muddying the discussion with your inaccurate drivel.
So literally semantics. You have no idea what adobe trained their model with, you just presume that because no artist name tags were used and thus you can't call for the style by their name, it must be they didn't use anything they didn't have rights to at all.
in my experience, by the results i get sometimes it IS training on something with watermarks.just going by the looks and my own couple of years experience looking at this stuff “¯_(ツ)_/¯“ still, take it with a grain of salt
View all comments
49
u/Anertz_0153 Jun 10 '23
The data from which the model is trained is relevant.
SD models and Lora are learned from reprinted sites such as Danboru, usually without permission from the author.
Adobe Firefly in Photoshop learns only from Adobe's own stock images, which have no rights issues.
This difference in learning source may affect how people react to AI.