Technology

59331 readers

5245 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Nightshade, the free tool that ‘poisons’ AI models, is now available for artists to use (venturebeat.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They're playing both sides. Who do you think wins when model training becomes prohibitively expensive to for regular people? Mega corporations already own datasets, and have the money to buy more. And that's before they make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us.

Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off and with less than where we started.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Who do you think wins when model training becomes prohibitively expensive to for regular people?

We passed that point at inception. Its always been more efficient for Microsoft to do its training at a 10,000 Petaflop giga-plant in Iowa than for me to run Stable Diffusion on my home computer.

Regular people, who could have had access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility

Already have that. It's called a $5 art kit from Michael's.

This isn't about creation, its about trade and propagation of the finished product within the art market. And its here that things get fucked, because my beautiful watercolor that took me 20 hours to complete isn't going to find a buyer that covers half a week's worth of living expenses, so long as said market place is owned and operated by folks who want my labor for free.

AI generation serves to mine the market at near-zero cost and redistribute the finished works for a profit.

But all this ultimately happens within the context of the market itself. The legal and financial mechanics of the system are designed to profit publishers and distributors at the expense of creatives. That's always been true and the latest permutation in how creatives get fucked is merely a variation on a theme.

instead be left worse off and with less than where we started.

AI Art does this whether or not its illegal, because it exists to undercut human creators of content by threatening them with an inferior-but-vastly-cheaper alternative.

The dynamic you're describing has nothing to do with AI's legality and everything to do with Disney's ability to operate as monopsony buyer of bulk artistic product. The only way around this is to break Disney up as a singular mass-buyer of artwork, and turn the component parts of the business over to the artists (and other employees of the firm) as an enterprise that answers to and profits the people generating the valuable media rather than some cartel of third-party shareholders.