Comment by NoraCodes
3 years ago
I did not say they were exclusively that; I said they were that.
Once we as a society have implemented a good way for the artists whose work powers these machines to survive, you can feel good about using them. Until then, frankly, you're doing something immoral by paying to use them.
By this logic we ought to start lynching artists, why they didn't care about all of those who lost their jobs making pigments, canvasses, pencils, brushes etc etc
Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed. Same as the person above claiming Duchamp didn't negotiate with the ceramics makers - yes, they absolutely did and do pay their suppliers. Artists aren't smash and grabbing their local Blick.
AI pays no artist.
>Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed.
Enter factories, now you gather all the knowledge from those who made the product, automate it and leave them without jobs.
Not digital artists, though.
Why on earth would you choose the word 'lynch' here? At worst I'm suggesting mild disapproval and regulation, not historically racist mob violence.
What if I run Stable Diffusion locally without paying anyone anything? Is it less immoral?
Marginally, yeah, since you're not supporting the development of more capable labor-saving devices in this category.
I'm still not a fan, though.
How is empowering others to create not a moral good?
1 reply →
Who pays to use generators? The open ones are way more capable and interesting, generally.
Isn't high-quality open image generation almost entirely dependent on Stability releasing their foundational models for free, at great expense to them?
That's not something you'll be able to rely on long-term, there won't always be a firehose of venture capital money to subsidise that kind of charity.
The cost of training them is going down, though. Given the existence of models like Pixart, I don’t think we’ll stay dependent on corporate charity for long.
Is that really your concern?
Whether you pay for it?
Let’s put it this way: paying for or not paying for stolen goods. Does it make any difference?
Why is that remotely relevant?
You want to argue “are the good stolen?” Sure. That’s a discussion we can have.
Did you pay for them or not? Who cares?
That's a terrible analogy. Until the scrapers start deleting all other copies of what what they're scraping, "stealing" the art in a traditional sense, there's no harm done in the process of training the network. Any harm done comes after that.