zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

>>supriy+c3
I believe Copilot was giving exact copies of large parts open source projects, without the license. Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works?

I feel like this is the main distinction.

>>TheMid+w4
> Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works?

um, yes.[1][2] What else would they be trained on?

According to the model card:

[1] https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/main/Stable...

it was trained on this data set(which has hyperlinks to images, so feel free to peruse):

[2] https://huggingface.co/datasets/laion/laion2B-en

>>rivers+T5
> What else would they be trained on?

why does it matter how it was trained? The question is, does the generative AI _output_ copyrighted images?

Training is not a right that the copyright holder owns exclusively. Reproducing the works _is_, but if the AI only reproduces a style, but not a copy, then it isn't breaking any copyright.

>>chii+M6
Yes, because real artists are also allowed to learn from other paintings. No problem there, unless they recreate the exact work of others.

>>hutzli+H7
Banning AI from training on copyrighted works is also problematic because copyright doesn't protect ideas, it only protects expression. So the model has legitimate right to learn ideas (minus expression) from any source.

For example facts in the phonebook are not copyrighted, the authors have to mix fake data to be able claim copyright infringement. Maybe the models could finally learn how many fingers to draw on a hand.