Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by godelski on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:40PM
(#39019533)
Sure, but it is quite difficult to prove your work was used in the models and it is also quite expensive legally while being very time consuming. So in practice does it matter? I still believe in presumption of innocence, but that isn't to say that it can't be exploited and that the system itself is expensive (monetarily and temporally). I think you're just oversimplifying the issue and dismissing before considering any nuance.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by freejazz on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @11:47PM
(#39023424)
what am I dismissing? I think these AI companies are stealing these works. Nerds here are equivocating the creation of art with what LLM output, simply out of their own inexperience making art. It's terrible and I hate it.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by godelski on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @01:56AM
(#39024190)
I believe I misinterpreted, it sounded like you were just suggesting it was copyright and thus could empower the artist to sue the companies. As if the process was rather straightforward and thus the fault on the artist for not pursuing. I'll admit that I'm primed by other comments which do express this sentiment explicitly. Sorry if I misunderstood.