Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by spongepoc on Thursday October 25, 2018 @08:57PM
(#18305956)
It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it.
Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat 'own' the DCGAN NN architecture now?
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by nl on Thursday October 25, 2018 @09:14PM
(#18306019)
I think the "taken advantage of" thing is more about the crappy way they behaved on the Github issues ("really disappointing") etc than the idea of using his code.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by sitkack on Thursday October 25, 2018 @10:00PM
(#18306185)
Of the whole thing, this is what struck me as distasteful. Manipulative and degrading.
The French kids owe the Stanford kid like half to all of it.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by dgut on Thursday October 25, 2018 @10:29PM
(#18306323)
The French "kids" are 25y afaik.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by tedeh on Friday October 26, 2018 @02:24AM
(#18307168)
Average peoples sense of entitlement when it comes to exploiting others freely given work probably comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever put anything open source up on Github or anywhere else.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by ReverseCold on Thursday October 25, 2018 @09:14PM
(#18306016)
> If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it.
And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem.
Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by dragonwriter on Thursday October 25, 2018 @09:45PM
(#18306139)
> In fact, making your code free for everyone to use probably is hurting the web,
It's the main reason there is a widely used public web rather than it, if it succeeded at all, being another academic niche tool alongside gopher.
Re:Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
by ReverseCold on Thursday October 25, 2018 @09:54PM
(#18306167)
Well, assuming that's true, it has little-to-no impact on how things should be going forward. The web is very clearly here to stay. At the very least people who want credit and payment for their work should not be encouraged to use OSI licenses.
So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry, might take longer". Hugo's response?
> "Ok, really disappointed. Could you at least provide the code for the 128x128 Gan in Keras ?"
He's literally sitting there for months pushing for poor Robbie to do the free work for him so that he can try to profit from it.
Maybe they really did make a lot of changes to the model. But from the conversation in that issue thread and the striking similarities between the painting and the other ones that Robbie had made over a year ago, it doesn't feel likely to me that that's the case.
Hopefully some justice will come out of this situation.
As an aside, according to his bio Robbie's only 19 (and already doing this level of research!). Sad to see younger researchers being taken advantage of like this.
https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/issues/3#event-140...