[HN Gopher] Multimodal Art
___________________________________________________________________
Multimodal Art
Author : btdmaster
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-04-25 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (multimodal.art)
(TXT) w3m dump (multimodal.art)
| rubinlinux wrote:
| One of the blogs I read has recently been pulling in this AI art
| stuff as story images, and I have a really strong reaction to
| them. They are almost obscene and gross to me to the point where
| I'm considering unsubscribe. Does anyone else feel this way about
| these?
|
| It kind of reminds me of
| http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
| inasmuch wrote:
| I wonder how long until people and organizations start trying to
| file copyright claims, etc. against people and organizations who
| generate AI images (still on the fence about calling this kind of
| thing "art") using data sets that include their IP.
|
| I confess my understanding of these tools is, at best,
| rudimentary, but they remind me a bit of sampling in music. In
| both cases, the source material may be radically distorted to
| arrive at the final product, but that hasn't mattered in the
| music biz--if you use it, you need to get it cleared, or you
| cannot monetize it.
|
| Take the image of the dog with the red ball on this website. What
| if, in the data the AI was trained on, there was a usage-
| restricted image of a caramel dog in a grass field with a green
| ball in his mouth? Would the AI just use that image and change
| the color of the ball? Would it ignore that easy match and
| instead generate its own using however many other related images,
| resulting in something quite visually different from the
| restricted source image? Does it matter? If the AI-generated
| image is virtually identical to the source photo, or contains
| some piece of it fully copied and integrated into the new image
| (sampled), is that new image legally owned by the person who used
| the AI?
|
| Can I train an AI on a data set consisting of a single image with
| a description of it, request an image of that exact description
| from the AI, and then publish and license the output as my own?
| If not, how big does a data set have to be before I can claim the
| output is novel and proprietary? Do a few blurry pixels or lossy
| compression artifacts prove an image has been sufficiently
| altered for new commercial use?
| swatcoder wrote:
| It's going to be a long while before lawyers and judges will be
| confident enough to pursue and make judgments about generative
| AI and copyright, exactly because so many novel considerations
| apply when the association between any given input and the work
| is essentially inexplicable.
|
| There's precedent in musical sampling, visual collage and
| assemblage, and poetic cutups, but they don't provide
| authoritative answers.
|
| By the time the courts or regulators are ready move on the
| issue, the practice will be so established by big commercial
| efforts like Copilot that my money is on a fairly permissive
| approach if only because of inertia.
| inasmuch wrote:
| > By the time the courts or regulators are ready move on the
| issue, the practice will be so established by big commercial
| efforts like Copilot that my money is on a fairly permissive
| approach if only because of inertia.
|
| Yeah, I think you're probably right about this, for better or
| worse.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| old.reddit.com/r/PromptSharing/comments/ubff9u/celestial_sea_fl
| oor/
|
| This is art. Generative algorithms are simply new tools to work
| in digital visual media. Fancy stencils. They're tapping into
| the same algorithms humans might use to generate things by
| hand, since they're function approximators trained in human
| output, but they're not ethically or legally more interesting
| than photoshop, to me, until there's a reason to question
| whether the tool or software is conscious. Until then, it's
| cleverly arranged math modules used to good effect.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Unfortunately, I think it will require new laws for people to
| have any control over how their content is used in training ML
| models. Current models seem sufficiently transformative to meet
| today's fair use criteria.
|
| > If not, how big does a data set have to be before I can claim
| the output is novel and proprietary?
|
| There isn't some exact N. That's like asking how tall is tall.
| It's fuzzy.
| inasmuch wrote:
| > There isn't some exact N. That's like asking how tall is
| tall. It's fuzzy.
|
| For sure. That's why I'm kinda surprised corporations aren't
| already trying to get a head of things and say any use is
| misuse, especially in the era of trigger-happy DMCA issuers.
|
| Beneath a tinfoil hat, I'm inclined to think the IP holders
| most likely to issue these takedowns see the potential in
| low-to-no-cost content generation and want to be able to use
| this technology themselves. Much has been said about the pop
| music formula--how nice would it be to license software to
| generate hit singles instead of dealing with pesky creative
| types?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-25 23:01 UTC)