Stability AI Plans To Let Artists Opt Out of Stable Diffusion 3 Image Training -...

Stability AI Plans To Let Artists Opt Out of Stable Diffusion 3 Image Training

• • Re:

    Correct: it should be opt in, possibly after the artist being paid a fee.

    • Re:

      I wonder if they could figure out a way to estimate the artist's contribution to a particular generated image, and compensate them based on that.

      Maybe run a secondary model (this painting looks like artist X) and split up compensation based on that?

      Of course, you start doing that and you definitely need to be opt in, which doesn't happen if you don't offer decent cash. I'm not sure these image generators are viable for anything but public domain (or compatible Creative Commons) imagery.

  • Re:

    By publishing your work online for free, there's a reasonable expectation that it will be looked at. The training loop of these diffusion models does just that: looks at it, adjusts its weights to minimize a loss function that helps it get somewhat close to that image as an output, discards the image, and repeats that for *millions* of images.

    What fees do artists deserve for this? Or should it not be allowed? It's unanswered still, but one thing is clear, it's going to happen whether we like it or not. If i

• ›

  When the brush changes from man to machine, the race that invented the concept of "art", probably has a right to question the newfound definition.

  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder lens?

• Steal first, offer opt out later is such a corporate thing to do.

• If an AI is learning a style or technique, how is this any deferent from a new artist initially copying techniques from other artists?

  If some of the output is absolute direct imagery from an artist, then I could see being really angry - but so far that's not exactly the case.

  The part where I start to feel more iffy about things is where you can tell the AI to spit out an image in the style of a particular artist, somehow that feels more like stepping over a line.

  But regardless of how I or any one of us feel

  • Re: Still not sure about this one

    Be cold blooded like a corporation. Why would you pay a person when AI does it copyright free? This will put 100% of commercial artists out on the street. The average chumpy biz owner can't see the difference between a canned website or logo. Subsequently, he can buy the whole pre built website with a passable logo for $50 now. Most commercial hosting has that. Look no further that GoDaddy.
    
    Today's list of professions that will be obsolete soon: journalists, musicians, artists, "coders"... soon also bottom

  • Re:

    The finest artists do not make art based on all the art they've seen. They make art from the life they've seen, and the things they think about. They learn techniques for using media directly and also from previous art. Art also teaches topics, and artistic attitudes, and history. Anyone might learn more history by learning about art. Computer software cannot learn from life, it can only learn by looking at art. I new a young composer who wrote baroque 17th-century music because he had tried to make musi
• If an image exist on the internet, or even offline in a digital format, it will be pirated and trained on. Learn to adapt. Don't try drm, as that will be cracked too.

• I don't see how this would change anything. First, it's not like there aren't masses of out of copyright artworks that can be used to train AI. Second, most artists aren't as unique as they think - even if one opts out, there'll be another ten creating art in a close enough style that the machine can learn from. So this is really locking the door after the horse has already fled the stable and is merrily gallumphing among the roses.

  Moreover, after quite a few visits to various galleries and museums of moder