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
At the very least, Stable Diffusion is much different than Copilot in term of the model license. I, you, and all the artists have irrevocable access to the model (in practical term, I'm not interested in discussion whether they can somehow legal strong arms people from using the model).

We only have mere limited access to Copilot. And it is impractical for almost anyone else on earth to train a similar model, while we are 100% sure it is possible to have a dataset or to redo the training of SD. Just from pure utilitarian point of view, it's much easier to support fighting against Copilot than SD

>>NhanH+p6
disregarding the access part, i say copilot also does not violate copyright, in so far as it only reproduces insubstantial portions of existing works.

If you asked copilot to reproduce an existing work, then surely that violates copyright - in the same way you can ask SD to reproduce one of the training data (which would violate copyright in the same way).

But both the training, and the usage of these ML models do not violate copyright. Only until someone produces a copyrighted works from it, does that particular _usage_ instance will violate copyright, and it does not invalidate any other usages.