|
|
|
|
|
by leonth
1331 days ago
|
|
I don't understand. Artists can also use these models to generate art, and looking at other industries, there are significant differences between professional output and "machine generated" output. Sort of the difference between a fullstack developer and no-code platform. Do developers fear no-code platforms taking over their jobs? Sure, yes for the menial tasks, but definitely not for high stakes complex products. Same as generative art - it may replace the need for those filler banners, stock photos, redrawing characters a little bit differently for that last panel - but no, you don't generate a coherent, entertaining 100 chapters manga with generative art. |
|
Developers had a similar response where they don't think that training a model using their copyrighted work is fair use, especially for commercial use.
They'd expect that the model authors would need to comply with the open source license like for any other use.
This is basically the debate here, it's same for artists or developers.
The question is if it makes sense to allow someone to use your copyrighted work to train a model that they'd then use for commercial purposes, without needing a license agreement.