Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

AI models have an amazing ability to approximately memorize any training data. It's just that that memorization is useless unless it memorizes something real as opposed to random (randomized ImageNet labels as a simple example).

So as much as I want there to be a fair use case here, the artists have a real point. If someone can break the memorization without losing significant validation/test set performance, that might go a long way.

But even then, artists don't want their style copied either, and that's problematic to me in that if a human does it, that's OK, but if an AI does it, it's not? Yes I get the ease of asking an AI to do it vs a 10K+ hours artist, but, well, more or less the same to me on a geological time scale.

In the next year, I'm hoping to Patreon/Kickstart project that offers two major funding tiers. Hitting the lowest tier means it will use AI to create assets, and hitting the higher tier will use humans instead. My response to this brouhaha is to throw the controversy right back at the people creating it in the first place and ask if they're willing to walk their fancy talk on this subject with their wallets.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: