Re:An old master? No, it’s an image AI just knocked up and i...
by palata on Sunday September 24, 2023 @06:47AM
(#37631924)
> “When I enter prompts into Midjourney, and re-enter them until I get what I want, it’s true I’m not drawing, but I am crafting an image using a tool.”
One problem I have is this: was Midjourney trained from public-domain data, or not? Assuming that most of the authors of the training data never actually agreed to their work being used for this, then I would reword the quote above as:
"it’s true I’m not drawing, but I am crafting an image using a tool that leverages work that I was never allowed to use".
I heavily disagree with the argument that "humans watch paintings and use that knowledge to create new paintings, and it's the same for AI". Because painters know what happens when they "publish" a painting. They implicitly accept that other painters may get inspiration from that, because it has been the case for thousands of years.
But painters can't possibly "implicitly" know the consequences of their work being used as training data. So it would make sense to require their explicit consent before using their work.
One problem I have is this: was Midjourney trained from public-domain data, or not? Assuming that most of the authors of the training data never actually agreed to their work being used for this, then I would reword the quote above as:
"it’s true I’m not drawing, but I am crafting an image using a tool that leverages work that I was never allowed to use".
I heavily disagree with the argument that "humans watch paintings and use that knowledge to create new paintings, and it's the same for AI". Because painters know what happens when they "publish" a painting. They implicitly accept that other painters may get inspiration from that, because it has been the case for thousands of years.
But painters can't possibly "implicitly" know the consequences of their work being used as training data. So it would make sense to require their explicit consent before using their work.