zlacker

Does anyone else think it's grifty for a company to scrape up your (and other's) intellectual property, reconfigure it, and then attempt to sell it back to you for just $9.99 via dreambooth?

>>puppyd+(OP)
Depends on if “attempt to sell it back to you” is an accurate framing

>>someth+Yi
I think it is. Take away the training and there is no product.

>>puppyd+(OP)
If they also give you the means to just do it yourself?

Imo something like dall-e or midjourney is much worse.

>>Improb+9N
They are all horrible, including the open source one (SD). I would never wish MY OWN work to be stolen and used, so why would I ever use a tool that stole someone else's work? I try not to be hypocritical.

>>puppyd+ro1
It is like someone breaking into your house, taking all of your furniture, works, and assets without your permission and then selling it back to you or to the highest bidder.

It seems almost everyone here in this thread is fine with such a grift on digital artists but when it is Copilot or ChatGPT; two years ago it was: 'Hardly going to compete against developers', with ChatGPT it became 'But juniors are only affected, not us seniors' and with GPT-4 + Copilot it will be: 'Please stop using AI code and sue GitHub now!'

Obviously this wasn't the case with Dance Diffusion (music version of Stable Diffusion) and that was trained on public domain music or the permission of musicians. It is almost as if that they knew if they did train it on copyrighted music and released it as open source, Stability AI would be out of business before they could counter the lawsuit. [0]

It is indeed a grift and the legal system will catch up on both Copilot and Stable Diffusion on using for copyrighted content in the training set of their AI models.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/07/ai-music-generator-dance-d...