The logo has the same exact copyrighted typography as the real Vanity Fair logo. I've also reproduced the same-copyrighted-typography with other brands with identical composition as copyrighted images. Just asking it "Vanity Fair cover story about Shrek" at a 3:2 ratio gives it a composition identical to a Vanity Fair cover very consistently (subject is in front of logo typography partially obscuring it)
The image linked has a traditional www watermark in the lower-left as well. Even something innocous as a "Super Mario 64" prompt shows a copyright watermark: https://x.com/minimaxir/status/1819093418246631855
If the training data includes a public blog post which has a screenshot of a vanity fair piece?
It's like GRRM complaining that LLMs can reproduce chunks of text from his books "they fed my novels into it" Oh yeah? It's definitely not all the parts of your book quoted in millions of places online, including several dedicated wiki style sites? That wouldn't be it, right?
Just to be clear: you're comparing the collapse of the creative restrictions which the state has cleverly branded "intellectual property" to... the holocaust?
Of all of the instances on HN of Godwin's law playing out that I've ever seen, this one is the new cake-taker.
This is like the fifth time I see someone paraphrasing Niemöller in an ai context, and it's exhausting. It's also near impossible to take the paraphraser seriously.
More to the point, AI is a tool. I could just as well infringe on vanity fair IP using ms-paint. Someone more artistic than me could make a oil-on-canvas copy of their logo too.
Or, to turn your own annoying "argument" against you:
First they came for AI models, and I did not speak out, because I wasn't using them. Then they came for Photoshop, and I did not speak out, because I had never learned to use it. Then they came for for oil and canvas, and now there are no art forms left for me.
Nobody at all is "coming for" fashion magazines, but you sure seem to be "coming for" AI. Whether you have any power or not is besides point.
Whether you are paraphrasing or referencing to a famous confessional poem dealing with the Holocaust, the only reasonable interpretation is that you're comparing with the Holocaust. Even if you were unaware of the phrases origins, that's how anyone who does know where it comes from will interpret it. See other comments drawing the same conclusion for reference.
Again. Ai is a tool. It can produce illegal material, just like a pencil can, or a brush with oil and canvas. How are they different? They are not.
I could write “with text that says Shutterstock” in the prompt but that doesn’t necessairly mean the dataset contains that