> Creators can now also opt their images out from training of our future image generation models.
So this version was again trained (without permission) on copyrighted work. And they try to shift the burden onto artists to manually opt out.
Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image?
So am I!
You also have the right to have your eyes open in a public dressing room, but you’re not allowed to turn on your camera and film.
You’re also allowed to have fireworks but not recreational C4s. And so on.
I'd say they're banking on the horse having bolted by the time such a thing might happen (i.e. courts would need to force 1000s of very large powerful companies to pay millions of people - an insurmountable legal effort).
This is literal Luddism.
This is less about AI, per se, and more about corporate -vs- personal IP rights. Historically, IP law has bent to benefit large corporations while citing personal IP rights as the raison d'être (& never fulfilling on that justification). What OpenAI (& many others) are doing here is just very flagrantly demonstrating how that justification was only ever an excuse, & that restrictions imposed by the Berne Convention, et al, have never really applied to corporations at scale (outside of small case-by-case exceptional examples).
The livelihoods being stolen are not being stolen by AI - rather it's a further reinforcement (scaling up) of a system that has been doing so for well over 100 years.
So far there is no solid proof of that. They didn't disclose the sources or the methodology. Except for 'trained' and 'copyrighted' the rest is questionable. Otherwise they would be already paying royalties.
They could have used the output from prev version 2 with prompts generated by GPT, and then corrected by humans based on the produced image. Also they could use CV to analyze new/old images. I.e. if there is a new feature in the image add it to prompt and train again.
They are certainly striking under-the-table deals with big IP holders like Disney to not poke the bears, but leave all smaller actors defenseless (or rather penniless, more so than they already are).
Sam Altman has already empirically proven himself to be rich enough to be above the courts with the whole WorldCoin thing, why should he assume it would suddenly be different now?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08...
What's illegal here is unauthorized distribution. Downloading a copy of something from a public server cannot get you in trouble here. Only publishing does.