probably absolutely madness but would be cool if these generative tools could cite the training images based on prompts, and maybe artists could be verified and receive a micropayment for when their image is used as an input for an image
The thing is that folks who want this to be a thing would really prefer that folks like me go along with them in conflating productivity with industrial productization. I find that to be a distasteful kind of hide-the-ball. And yanno, maybe it's just me, but attempting to railroad humans out of the visual arts via economies of scale has no bearing on "human flourishing".
From where I stand, it's a cheap-suit excuse to bleed us of culture and art.
Agreed, and I would add the problem that without human artists taking the time and effort and skill to create art, these 'AI' would have nothing to feed off of. By destroying any living an artist could make by reproducing shoppinglist amalgamations for cheap, we are disintegrating the last small platforms for living artists . We're disrespecting the dedication and skill it takes to create art by pretending that a computer can create art as humans do.
Not really. There’s a difference between not “don’t pay the human responsible for making this work despite their objections” and “don’t pay a human because we don’t need them.” The former case is how these models came about.
Because people like to pretend here and on other tech sites that somehow generative models cannot and do not memorize things and therefore those pesky things like copyrights and attribution should not apply to them.
Of course google image search can show a wrong source, but it's still a big difference between "absolutely nothing" and "potentially wrong thing".