zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Surely, if the next Stable Diffusion had to be trained from a dataset that has been purged of images that were not under a permissive license, this would at most be a minor setback on AI's road to obsoleting painting that is more craft than art. Do artists not realise this (perhaps because they have some kind of conceit along the lines of "it only can produce good-looking images because it is rearranging pieces of some Real Artists' works it was trained on"), are they hoping to inspire overshoot legislation (perhaps something following the music industry model in several countries: AI-generated images assumed pirated until proven otherwise, with protection money to be paid to an artists' guild?), or is this just a desperate rearguard action?

>>4bpp+65
There’s only one way to figure it out - train on a properly licensed content and show them that.

Your line of reasoning sounds like “ah, we already won so your protest doesn’t matter anyway”, but did you already win actually? Do you really not need all their development to draw on the same level? Just show that.

>>wruza+88
I'm not in AI and my GPU barely runs games from 10 years ago, so I'll pass. To be more precise, though, I think that it _seems_ that their protest won't matter, but the one way in which I see that it may (the second out of three options) leads to an outcome that I would just consider bad in the short term (for society, and for artists that are not established enough to benefit from any emerging redistribution system; we observe cases in Germany every so often where pseudonymous musicians are essentially forced to charge for their own performances and redirect proceeds to rent-seekers and musicians that are not them, because they can't prove ownership of their own work to GEMA's satisfaction).