zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. lucide+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-10-16 22:39:13
I don't know specifically what DALL-E was trained on, but if it's art for which the artists' have not consented to it being used to train AI then that's problematic. I haven't seen any objections to DALL-E on that basis specifically though, whereas all the discussion of Copilot is around the fact that code authorship & Github accounts are not intrinsically tied together, making it impossible to have code authors consent to their code being used, regardless of what ToS someone's agreed to.

> For myself, I am skeptical of intellectual property in the first place. I say go for it.

I'm in a similar boat but this is precisely the reason I object so strongly to Copilot. IP has been invented & perpetuated/extended to protect large corporate interests, under the guise of protecting & sustaining innovators & creative individuals. Copilot is a perfect example of large corporate interest ignoring IP when it suits them to exploit individuals.

In other words: the reason I'm skeptical of IP is the same reason I'm skeptical of Copilot.

replies(1): >>__alex+A1
2. __alex+A1[view] [source] 2022-10-16 22:54:14
>>lucide+(OP)
Stable Diffusion and DallE were both trained on copyrighted content scraped from the internet with no consent from the publishers.

It's quite a common complaint because some of the most popular prompts involve just appending an artist's name to something to get it to copy their style.

[go to top]