diemes1

Inflammatory comments should be welcome. New technologies, when not scrutinized, become tomorrows problems.

Just because the model does not save any imagery directly does not change the fact that the model cannot exist without copyrighted imagery. These diffusion models are being made by humans, not aliens and should be judged as such.

Van Gogh's studies of existing works of the time still maintain his 'style', his brush strokes, use of color, rendering of form. No matter how many times he copies another's work he's still Van Gogh and his work expresses and reflects who he 'is'. There is no existing model from which we can accurately imitate the human creative process, so it begs the question, what is the nature of the imagery generated?

Think of it like your hand writing and signature style. Even if it may appear similar to others, it's still uniquely identifiable as yours. If someone copies your writing style and signature to forge documents, it wouldn't just become ok as long as they forge new documents, in any case it would be immoral and illegal without your express consent.

That is the nature of algorithmically generated imagery, complex forgery, but instead of the forgery being of an individual, it's modeled from billions of images scraped from the internet. This is entirely different from the human creative process.

Never seen John Carmack described as an artist before

The original interview is in the guardian, don't know why they posted the paraphrased article.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/07/watchmen-autho...