It does kind of drive home an argument that it’d be nice to have Stable Diffusion extensions, if not the whole program, run in isolation. I don’t know how hardened the GPU drivers are, and those have to be exposed.
They are wrong. Theft means depriving someone of having something, and that’s not the case here. It’s more a “they’re taking our jobs” kind of situation.
You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 Jun 11:08
nextcollapse
You should read this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow.
darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org
on 12 Jun 13:12
nextcollapse
I look at art without paying anyone, I guess I’m stealing.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
Wow. All artists throughout history just facedesked at that comment.
darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org
on 12 Jun 13:13
collapse
Targeting an open source project. So brave, what a statement. /s
This has 0 effect on all the big AI companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, etc. All this does is make it harder for FOSS projects and leaves the corporations to dominate.
Daxtron2@startrek.website
on 12 Jun 14:21
collapse
threaded - newest
It does kind of drive home an argument that it’d be nice to have Stable Diffusion extensions, if not the whole program, run in isolation. I don’t know how hardened the GPU drivers are, and those have to be exposed.
I mean, they’re not wrong but … since they’re also hacking people their motives seem kind of mixed.
They are wrong. Theft means depriving someone of having something, and that’s not the case here. It’s more a “they’re taking our jobs” kind of situation.
That’s what I’ve been saying! At most it’s piracy
You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
You should read this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow.
I look at art without paying anyone, I guess I’m stealing.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
All artists train themselves on others artwork, most probably unpaid.
Wow. All artists throughout history just facedesked at that comment.
Targeting an open source project. So brave, what a statement. /s
This has 0 effect on all the big AI companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, etc. All this does is make it harder for FOSS projects and leaves the corporations to dominate.
Its low hanging fruit for script kiddies