John David Pressman on X: "https://t.co/lTOr8b4NU2"
"Isn't that the current art market?" No, the bigcos are currently arthritic enough to humbly allow you to get a commission sometimes.
This is a free speech issue. The hardware to produce the neural net that can make this image *also* costs under 10k. The data to produce the neural net only requires 80k items. BigCo can't control this unless they trick you into exempting AI art from fair use.
If you're an artist they are going to prey on your sense of indignation to get you to hand them the keys to the kingdom. At a moment of weakness for you when this stuff looks threatening as hell and maybe even bites into your income, they will promise to make it go away.
And if they succeed, it will go away, for a little while. Then in a year or two, five, they'll be back with their own nets trained on their own private IP and it will be you that they make go away. They will be able to post art faster than anyone else and take most commissions.
If that sounds farfetched, this is what these techniques could do in January. The CLIP used to produce these is tiny compared to what it is possible to train, people just haven't gotten around to training a bigger one yet. There's lots of room for improvement here.
And once they make you go away, they will have a stranglehold on culture even stronger than the social media companies. Because where social media companies can only nudge you into paying attention to certain things, these companies control the proportion of what ideas exist.
If their argument is "a neural net is by definition 'stealing' content from its training data," well, pretty much every living artist on the planet has a neural net between their ears that was trained on content from Disney.