zlacker

> I think that would be a very bad thing because it would legally enshrine a difference between human learning and machine learning in a broader sense, and I think machine learning has huge potential to improve everyone's lives.

How about we legally enshrine a difference between human learning and corporate product learning? If you want to use things others made for free, you should give back for free. Otherwise if you’re profiting off of it, you have to come to some agreement with the people whose work you’re profiting off of.

>>6gvONx+(OP)
Well Stable Diffusion did give back.

This doesn’t seem to satisfy the artists.

>>Negiti+46
I’m thinking about the people who use SD commercially. There’s a transitive aspect to this that upsets people. If it’s unacceptable for a company to profit off your work without compensating you or asking for your permission, then it doesn’t become suddenly acceptable if some third party hands your work to the company.

Ideally we’d see something opt-in to decide exactly how much you have to give back, and how much you have to constrain your own downstream users. And in fact we do see that. We have copyleft licenses for tons of code and media released to the public (e.g. GPL, CC-BY-SA NC, etc). It lets you define how someone can use your stuff without talking to you, and lays out the parameters for exactly how/whether you have to give back.

>>Negiti+46
"Giving back" is cute but it doesn't make up for taking without permission in the first place. Taking someone's stuff for your own use and saying "here's some compensation I decided was appropriate" is called Eminent Domain when the government does it and it's not popular.

Many people would probably happily allow use of their work for this if asked first, or would grant it for a small fee. Lots of stuff is in the public domain. But you have to actually go through the trouble of getting permission/verifying PD status, and that's apparently Too Hard