Hacker News Reader

Comment by bethecloud | Hacker News Reader

Person enters "Ann Graham Lotz", image of Ann Graham Lotz appears. Why does this upset people and google image search doesn't

View on HN

Because google image search "cites" the source. It's a big difference.

Of course google image search can show a wrong source, but it's still a big difference between "absolutely nothing" and "potentially wrong thing".

probably absolutely madness but would be cool if these generative tools could cite the training images based on prompts, and maybe artists could be verified and receive a micropayment for when their image is used as an input for an image

"these" generative tools can't do that. The transformer-based ML algorithm just can't do that.

Of course maybe in the future we'll have a better method, but it will be a very different thing from what we have today.

That seems generally antithetical to the goals of the folks making these, which is "don't pay a human for what a computer can do instead".

This is how you unlock productivity and drive human flourishing.

The thing is that folks who want this to be a thing would really prefer that folks like me go along with them in conflating productivity with industrial productization. I find that to be a distasteful kind of hide-the-ball. And yanno, maybe it's just me, but attempting to railroad humans out of the visual arts via economies of scale has no bearing on "human flourishing".

From where I stand, it's a cheap-suit excuse to bleed us of culture and art.

Agreed, and I would add the problem that without human artists taking the time and effort and skill to create art, these 'AI' would have nothing to feed off of. By destroying any living an artist could make by reproducing shoppinglist amalgamations for cheap, we are disintegrating the last small platforms for living artists . We're disrespecting the dedication and skill it takes to create art by pretending that a computer can create art as humans do.

Not really. There’s a difference between not “don’t pay the human responsible for making this work despite their objections” and “don’t pay a human because we don’t need them.” The former case is how these models came about.

If you don't want people seeing your art and learning from it, then why would you post it on the internet in the first place?

Are you saying that they intended for it to be used this way? Because it's straightforward to see whether this outcome matches their intent. Just look at all the uproar in the artist communities that were scraped.

I don't see why intent of the artist matters.

As a human, I have a natural right to take inspiration from content, use facts I learn from books, concepts from art, jokes from movies, etc.

Don't see why using a machine to augment/extend this capability is any different

Because people like to pretend here and on other tech sites that somehow generative models cannot and do not memorize things and therefore those pesky things like copyrights and attribution should not apply to them.

Compression is prediction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com