• burliman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your argument is tired. Have you ever simply prompted a generative txt2img and told it to make 100 or even 200 in the batch? You might have 1 or 2 that shine and are interesting without any touch up. But almost every one will require inpainting, photoshop work, or other creative modifications to be worth a damn. And even then some won’t be.

    Like I said in my comment. It will be banal without real creativity. It doesn’t even take millions of “paintings” to get there. No one will care about cheaply manufactured junk after the novelty wears off. We will demand more than that.

    Ultimately it will be a tool that extends all our creativity. It already is. But if we fear it because of arguments like yours then laws will be made to keep it out of the hands of the common plebe. But it won’t disappear. You can bet your ass it won’t. It will just be used in dark places by powerful people, and not just for banal image prompting. And then you can fear it rightfully.

    • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re missing (or ignoring) the point of my argument. A human who learns from other work can only apply that skill in a limited amount. Even if a human learns to copy Van Gogh’s style and continually churns out minor variations of his work, they cannot produce dozens per minute. Let alone learn to do that equally well from several hundreds (thousands?) of other artists. There’s a scale difference in human learning versus machine learning that is astronomical.

      I’m not sure what you’re going on about with “fear”. But I think that training a model on non-public domain content, without the permission of (or even crediting) the creator should be illegal.