E.g. The Shining picture of Jack Nicholson with the door isn't representative of the "look" of the film, but very much an iconic still frame and basically what you see in a Google image search for "The Shining".
Especially if the movie(s) that are eventually generated this way are ripping whole scenes or sequences out of other films, a la copilot.
It’s like extremely expensive piracy that is bad for artists and bad for the environment.
I wonder if the reason OpenAI, Google, etc don’t release these things isn’t so much that they’re worried about racist/offensive output, but instead they’re worried about people using it to create images of, say, Mickey Mouse and drawing the attention of his lawyers? It’d be better for AI companies to keep all of this stuff in a legal gray area for as long as possible.
If you look at a movie poster, your brain does not need to be released in the public domain. Even if you sketch it from memory.
Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both.
> If you look at a movie poster, your brain does not need to be released in the public domain. Even if you sketch it from memory.
Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not.
Copyright laws were made to protect artists from IP theft. If I make a sculpture, it’s not trivial to copy that and steal from me, so creating copyright laws to protect sculptors would be a hard sell.
But a painting, a book, a song, etc are easy to steal, especially with technology. Copying and selling someone else’s painting is similar to copying and selling someone else’s sculpture, yet the scale of theft is obviously different (mass producing sculptures is much harder than making unlimited copies of an mp3)
These AI models are a new type of theft, and likewise need new types of legal protections for artists.
Yes, but we don't have copyright laws to protect the environment. So harm to the environment is not a copyright argument.
> Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not.
I don't even know what that means.
> But a painting, a book, a song, etc are easy to steal, especially with technology.
The AI does not merely duplicate training samples. That said, effort is also unrelated to copyright.
Meh. This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models and will have to find something else to do for a living. Its not the first time in history that an occupation is obsoleted. Projectionnists in cinemas have mostly dissapeared.
> This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models
This makes me think that you’re lacking a fundamental understanding of what art is. The “demand” for art is never going to disappear, but these models are simply going to disrupt the supply by flooding the market with derivative works at a massive scale.
The internet posed a similar threat back when it first came out, but laws were changed to combat that (e.g. the DMCA). I fail to see how this situation is any different?
A country that doesn’t get on top of this issue will doom itself to cultural irrelevance in the long term, IMO.
Typically, creators are very protective of this sort of thing, unless it stays in the area of fan art. If anyone tries to seriously monetize this kind of output, I'm sure we'll see a lot of cases.
Imagine what Disney would do if you used DALL-E to create an animated feature film in the style of Mickey Mouse, but with cats instead of mice, and they found out you used actual footage from, say, Fantasia to train an AI model. No idea if they would win, but I'm certain they'd sue.