Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayindirh | Hacker News Reader

Generating an image from an already open tab is faster than making a search engine query and selecting a good, high resolution image.

Who cares about quality. Speed is the new black.

View on HN

Letting AI generate your image also dances around the issues of attribution and licensing, for better or worse.

ai generated imagery can’t be copyrighted while all other photography can and generally needs to be treated as it is. Therefore you likely have to pay a royalty to Getty or other asset outlet. Of use AI.

…who have quite conveniently already stolen and trained on all the copyrighted images. Thanks AI!

Please. It's all fair use. Otherwise AI companies can't repackage and sell what's out there for free.

On a relevant note: https://www.theverge.com/news/674366/nick-clegg-uk-ai-artist...

It might be "fair use" on the way out, but AI companies certainly didn't pay for a copy of every book in existence to train on. It's also straddling a super fine line between legality and morality.

It’s actually likely fair use on the way in as well. What’s not fair use is the production of copyright material with the model and the question is the extent to which model providers have to prevent it. These topics came up with the photocopier, VHS tapes, etc. The training side is more subtle because they are clearly unlicensed and used in the model but this is actually similar to taking a book and photocopying sections and using them for handouts and in training materials or other uses. The crucial part is they effectively destroy the original material in training and no where in the model is the copyright material, even if they can produce something similar when deliberately induced to do so. However you the user induced it, and depending on what you do with what you induced, you can violate the original copyright holder. (N.b., IANAL, but these are my summaries of discussing with a law professor at length who specializes in copyright, open source, etc)

Whether it’s moral or not to not remunerate everyone who produced the training material is of course important but a different question. I sort of agree with Sanders et al that Ai should be a public trust like the Alaskan oil reserves. But good luck.

This is major cope. They torrented copyrighted works. It’s theft. It is in no way equivalent to photocopying pages.

Yes, exactly. My comment was a sarcastic take on that fact.

and tech companies wonder why consumers hate AI

What seems to be the problem here? Why is it offensive that someone didnt spend more time hand selecting a picture for the article?

There's a saying in Zen which I live by. "How you do something is how you do everything".

Start to be sloppy somewhere, you'll be sloppy everywhere. As we "learn and enable" to do things faster with less effort, the quality of the thing we (as in humans collectively) do decline.

AI, when used as the sole blunt instrument, accelerates this dramatically.

Because it's not being used to deliver better products, it's being used to flood the market with even more garbage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com